Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Assets Recovery Agency

David Trimble: If he will make a statement on the work of the Assets Recovery Agency.

Jane Kennedy: I have been informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Office that the Northern Ireland branch of the Assets Recovery Agency has six cases that are currently under active investigation. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the agency has been granted investigative orders, including search warrants, by the High Court in two cases on 13 June and 23 June. Indeed, search warrants were executed yesterday at three premises in County Down by Assets Recovery Agency staff, with the support and assistance of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

David Trimble: I welcome the progress that the Minister reports. May I underline how important it is that the agency produces results, in particular with regard to the leading godfathers of paramilitarism and racketeering, because they are largely the same? I do not need to go into names, but the agency needs to target very quickly leading paramilitaries who we know control the major rackets. I hope that the agency will go after them and not just go around gathering up smaller fish.
	On accountability, because the body does not exercise police powers, it is not subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate. Will it come under the purview of the inspectorate of criminal justice? In that respect, we welcome the appointment of Lord Clyde as inspector. Will he have a supervisory role, because it would be wrong if that body turned out to be the only element in the broad spectrum of criminal justice that is not subject to an inspection arrangement?

Jane Kennedy: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's words about the good work that the agency has undertaken in Northern Ireland. However, on accountability, the Northern Ireland branch of the Assets Recovery Agency is part of a UK-wide agency. Along with other partners of the Organised Crime Task Force, its accountability is often to Ministers and other Departments outwith Northern Ireland Office responsibilities. In this case, I believe that the current accountability arrangements are appropriate.

Peter Robinson: May I assure the Minister that support for the Assets Recovery Agency comes not just from the small parties in Northern Ireland, but from Northern Ireland's largest political party as well?
	Is the Minister aware of the concern that the bulk of the cases considered by the Assets Recovery Agency involve loyalist paramilitaries, whereas the largest amount of money has been obtained by republican paramilitaries? Is there any step she can take to ensure that there is a proper pursuit of republican paramilitaries? Does she think that the Assets Recovery Agency could give any assistance to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to recover some of his recent lost assets?

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to receive support for the Assets Recovery Agency, from whatever quarter it comes. On the selection of cases, it is important to remember that that is pursued by the agency and it is entirely for its director, supported by the assistant director of Northern Ireland, to determine. She must act in accordance with her statutory duty to use her powers in the way that she considers best calculated to reduce crime. However, we know of the clear links that exist between paramilitary organisations and organised criminal networks in Northern Ireland. We are very conscious of those links and pursue all organised criminals, whatever their political persuasion or complexion.

John Taylor: In the context of assets recovery, is there not a danger that the IRA will not disarm, not because it still believes that it can bomb its way to a united Ireland, but because it needs its arms to sustain the menace of its criminal activities?

Jane Kennedy: That does not apply just to the Provisional IRA, but to all paramilitary organisations that we have established are clearly engaged, or associated with, organised criminals who operate not simply within localities in Northern Ireland, but with organised criminal networks across the UK, Europe and the world. We must oppose those groups. The hon. Gentleman is right that they use their ill-gotten gains for the pursuit of terrorism. It is precisely because of that link, and the Government's recognition of it, that we established the Organised Crime Task Force in the first place.

Peace Process

Nick Palmer: If he will make a statement on the peace process.

Paul Murphy: We are pursuing with the political parties how the devolved institutions might be restored and the remainder of the Belfast agreement fully implemented. It is essential to such advance, however, to have clarity on both the future of paramilitarism and the stability of the institutions.

Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that following recent developments in the Ulster Unionist party, a significant majority remains in favour of the peace process in the Ulster Unionist party and in the Unionist electorate, and an overwhelming majority is in favour of it in the electorate at large? Will he take the opportunity to work with those who favour the peace process and marginalise the fringe groups that do not?

Paul Murphy: I cannot agree with what my hon. Friend said in his last sentence about marginalising groups that do not agree with the Good Friday agreement. It is my job to talk to all political parties in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their political standpoint. However, I very much agree that the vote at the Ulster Unionist Council last week indicated that a majority of its members are still in favour of the Good Friday agreement. I agree with my hon. Friend that the majority of people in Northern Ireland believe that the best way forward is through the Good Friday agreement, and I also agree that the polls suggest that that includes the Unionist community. I believe that people in Northern Ireland want an end to paramilitary activity, and want the stability of the institutions that will be achieved through the Good Friday agreement.

Roy Beggs: Would the Secretary of State tell the House how an amnesty for on-the-run IRA terrorist suspects can contribute to the peace process? Does he understand the growing public anger at the continuing persecution of former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and those who served in the security forces in tribunals such as the Bloody Sunday inquiry, where millions of pounds worth of taxpayers' hard-earned money is being squandered?

Paul Murphy: I would not agree that money is being squandered. However, I agree that it is important for us at some stage to draw a line under what has happened in the past 30 years in Northern Ireland. There will come a time when we want to achieve a normal society in Northern Ireland, and I believe that we are going in that direction. As for the on-the-runs, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the proposals discussed at Hillsborough do not include an amnesty for on-the-runs, but they do make provision for a proper judicial process. He will also be aware that that process is linked in to acts of completion by the IRA, so it is entirely conditional on what happens in that area.

Eddie McGrady: Does the Secretary of State agree that the peace process, which has now stalled, cannot be put back on track until there is firm, verifiable demilitarisation and destructuring by the paramilitaries, both republican and loyalist? Does he also agree that Government policy and attitudes to date have not created common ground among nationalists and Unionists who support the Good Friday agreement, so it is essential that the Government undertake a drive to ensure that paragraph 13 on decommissioning, destructuring and the cessation of violence against the community is immediately implemented in its entirety, particularly by the Provisional IRA, so that we can re-establish the devolved institutions of partnership.

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend is entirely right that progress on restoring the institutions of the Good Friday agreement rests on the confidence and trust that need to be built up between political parties in Northern Ireland. That can be done only if the issues addressed in paragraph 13 about paramilitary activity are dealt with. My hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and his personal history in Northern Ireland is such that we listen to him with great respect. I believe that in the months ahead we will resolve these problems, which are extremely difficult at the moment. However, it is important that the House realises that unless we resolve the problems first, of paramilitary activity, and secondly, of the stability of the institutions we will not get a properly restored Executive in Northern Ireland.

Lembit �pik: Paragraph 8 of the validation, implementation and review section of the Good Friday agreement states that
	the two Governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference 4 years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation.
	It is now more than five years since the agreement was signed and four and a half years since the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was passed, but that review has not even started yet. Why not?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we have had reviews of the Good Friday agreement under paragraph 7. A review under paragraph 8, which makes provision for a more general, deeper and intense review, will take place before the year is over. It is important for political parties and the two Governments to get together to look at the issues that divide us and ensure that the Good Friday agreement is implemented in full. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that if that is to happen we must rebuild confidence between parties, and to do so we have to address the issues that I referred to earlier.

Judy Mallaber: I went to Belfast last week on a cross-party visit and was struck by the positive changes since I first visited many years ago, with the development of the city centre and the work of those such as the East Belfast community partnership to promote regeneration, jobs and skills. I also found considerable good will towards implementing the Good Friday agreement and returning to a normal life. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the priority must be to rebuild trust and move back towards an effective power-sharing Executive and Assembly?

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend is right. We must rebuild that trust in order to move forward in the process. She is also right to draw the House's attention to the improvements in the life of people in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Good Friday agreement in 1998. She is aware that there are now 34,000 unemployed people in Northern Ireland, which is the lowest figure since 1975; that the increase in economic activity in Northern Ireland is such that it is the fastest-growing region or nation in the whole of the United Kingdom; and that there has been a 25 per cent. increase in tourism in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement. She is particularly aware that the security situation in Northern Ireland is much improved on what it was in 1998.

Quentin Davies: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), to the Northern Ireland Front Bench. He and I are old sparring partners, and we look forward to his contributions on this important subject.
	As it is clear that the peace process has been paralysed since the Government decided to cancel the elections, and the parties have turned in on themselves, and as there continue to be murders by loyalist paramilitaries and attempted murders by republican dissidents, and the Garda Commissioner and the Chief Constable have both expressed their concern about the security position over the past few days, would it not be sensible to shelve all plans for any reductions in intelligence gathering or security capability in Northern Ireland, including the plans to dismantle the observation towers in south Armagh?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows that any actions that are taken with regard to security installations are dealt with on the basis of the level of threat. He also knows that the normalisation paper that was discussed at Hillsborough, and which appears in the joint declaration, is entirely related to acts of completion by the IRA. The hon. Gentleman is right that, towards the autumn, it is important for us to engage in intensive discussions and negotiations with political parties in Northern Ireland so that we can have an Assembly in Northern Ireland. In addition, we want the Executive governing Northern Ireland, so that people who are from Northern Ireland can govern the people in Northern Ireland.

Quentin Davies: Is not the whole point that there have been no acts of completion, so reductions in our capability are inappropriate? Even if the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding were prepared to countenance the dismantling of those towers, is it not rather foolish to give away that card for nothing, in advance of the comprehensive negotiations that we all hope can resume before too long?

Paul Murphy: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that the decision to dismantle the towers is entirely in line with the wishes of the GOC and the Chief Constable. I repeat that acts of completion by the IRA, particularly with regard to paramilitary activity, are linked to the rest of the normalisation paper, which is in the joint declaration. All our efforts are bent on ensuring that in the autumn we resolve our difficulties, we have an Assembly and we have an Executive, so that the process can move forward.

John Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that for the first time in history, the vast majority of the people of Ireland north and south have voted together on how they wish to live together, by overwhelmingly voting for the agreement? For that reason, it is the duty of all true democrats to implement the will of the people. Certain Opposition parties that wish to overthrow that agreement are overthrowing the principle of consent, which was the fundamental principle of Unionism. If they do that, what damage are they doing to their own people?

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In 1998, people north and south voted overwhelmingly for the Good Friday agreement, and the institutions of that agreement are the only way forward. I know that my hon. Friend is also aware that for us to move forward and to ensure that those institutions are restored, we have to restore the confidence and trust between parties in Northern Ireland, and that is based on ensuring that there is an end to paramilitary activity and that the institutions in Northern Ireland are stable.

Terrorist Links

David Burnside: If he will make a statement on the links between (a) Sinn Fein and (b) the Provisional IRA and (i) Batasuna and (ii) ETA in Spain.

Jane Kennedy: The political and ideological relationship between Sinn Fein and Batasuna are well attested, as evidenced by recent press statements from Sinn Fein.

David Burnside: The Minister will surely be aware, if she listens to her intelligence advisers, that ETA-Batasuna and IRA-Sinn Fein are identical and integrated organisations. In the case of our home-based IRA-Sinn Fein organisation, the Sinn Fein president and chief negotiator sit in the army council. The Minister should also be aware that under the definition of proscription of organisations in the Terrorism Act 2000, Sinn Fein should be on the list of proscribed organisations. Is it not time that the Government had the same courage as the Spanish Government and put Sinn Fein on the proscribed list until it acts as a democratic party?

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is right that Sinn Fein is the IRA's political wing and as such the two are inextricably linked. Howeverit is important for us all to bear this in mindthe Spanish do not regard Batasuna as supporting the peace process. Sinn Fein does support the peace process. Unlike ETA[Interruption.] Hon. Members may disregard that if they wish, but unlike ETA the IRA is on ceasefire, and it is worth bearing in mind the difference in the behaviour of the two organisations. However, hon. Members will know, and will have heard the Government state many times, that ceasefires on their own are no longer enough to restore trust and confidence and to allow the re-establishment of the institutions. The IRA has to make it absolutely clear that all paramilitary activity, as set out in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments, will come to an end.

Nigel Dodds: The Minister has admitted that Sinn Fein and the IRA, a terrorist group operating in part of the United Kingdom, are inextricably linked. Why, then, do the Government persist in trying to insert into all accountable Executive positions in part of the United Kingdom a group linked to and inextricably part of a terrorist organisation? Despite the Secretary of State's determination to close his eyes to reality, if he looks along this Bench in the House of Commons today he will see the realitythat the policy of supporting Sinn Fein in Government in Northern Ireland is supported only by a rump of the Unionist party as led by

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister will answer only the question.

Jane Kennedy: I repeat that, unlike ETA, the Provisional IRA remains on ceasefire. The cost to Spain in terms of ETA's continuance of its terrorist programme has been 46 deaths since 1999. The comparisons with the Provisional IRA deserve scrutiny. The Provisional IRA, in our assessment, remains on ceasefire. However, as I said earlier, and it bears repeating, ceasefires on their own are no longer enough.

Seamus Mallon: The Minister will be aware that all the structures to deal with terrorism must work properly, whether in Northern Ireland or outside it. Will the Minister confirm that, as of now, necessary investigations into the criminal activities of loyalist paramilitary groupings cannot be properly processed by the police ombudsperson for the very good reason that the Government will not fund those investigations? Will the Minister take the opportunity now to tell the House that the Government will fund at least three investigations into not just serious irregularities, but murders?

Jane Kennedy: I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend on the point that he has made. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland received the whole of the budgetary requirements that she put forward in the case that she made. We met her request in full. The cases that she takes forward are a matter for her to prioritise within the budgets that she is required to manage.

Hugo Swire: The Minister may maintain that the IRA remains on ceasefire, to use her words, but the reality is that the current problems in Northern Ireland politics are caused by the IRA's failure to complete and the Government's repeated concessions to it. Is she aware of the recent poll conducted by Millward Brown Ulster, which clearly states:
	If the IRA was to disband, 76 per cent. of Unionists would support the Good Friday agreement?
	Is it not crystal clear where the Government's efforts must lie?

Jane Kennedy: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. The complete transition to exclusively peaceful means is the contribution that all paramilitary organisations could make and which the people of Northern Ireland deserve. As I have said previously, statements or words on their own are not enough. The people of Northern Ireland, in order to have the confidence that all parties engaged in the peace process are fully wedded to democratic means, need to see actions that follow through on the words that they say.

Paramilitaries

Iain Luke: If he will make a statement on the criminal activities of Northern Ireland paramilitary organisations outside Northern Ireland.

Jane Kennedy: The Organised Crime Task Force's most recent assessment is that two thirds of the organised crime groups in Northern Ireland have links to paramilitary organisations. Clearly, a number of those groups undertake their criminal activities both across and outside Northern Ireland.
	Good operational links already exist between law enforcement agencies nationally and internationally, as my hon. Friend has good reason to know in his constituency[Interruption.] I will continue to work with Organised Crime Task Force members with UK-wide responsibilities to assist in the fight against national and international organised crime[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the House, and it is unfair to those who are in the Chamber for Northern Ireland questions.

Iain Luke: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Given her very heavy work load, I am sure that she is unable to read the Dundee Evening Telegraph and Post or The Courier and Advertiser, but she will be aware from last week's reports in the Belfast News Letter and The Irish Times of the 26-year sentences handed down to five members of a Protestant paramilitary organisation, the Red Hand Commando, for their armed robbery at a Dundee public house last year. On speaking to the chief constable of Tayside, I was told that there was little consultation between the authorities in Northern Ireland and the police force in Tayside and Dundee. Given the statements that she has made today, I hope that she will do all that she can to ensure that greater efforts are made to improve liaison between the two organisations on the mainland and in Northern Ireland.

Jane Kennedy: I am surprised to hear my hon. Friend's comments and I shall look into the case that he raises. I had understood that the Police Service of Northern Ireland indeed provided written statements and that an officer testified in the court case. I had concluded on that basis that there were good relations. I know that such relations exist on an operational basis between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other police forces throughout England and Wales and, indeed, Scotland. Where such good links need to be developed, they are developed and built upon, and they are to be commended.

Lady Hermon: The Minister will be aware that a very good Bill, the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, has just completed its Standing Committee stage. What discussion has she had with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland about the implications of that Bill for tackling paramilitary organisations in the Republic of Ireland?

Jane Kennedy: As the hon. Lady knows, I regularly meet the Chief Constable to discuss a range of issues. No concerns as such have been raised directly with me about the implications for Northern Ireland of the Bill to which she referred. I am aware of the very good relationships that exist between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the law enforcement agencies in the Republic of Ireland, and I will do all in my power to foster those good relations so that we can continue to see successful joint operations of the sort that recently led to interception of the vehicle bombs that were thankfully intercepted at the border at the weekend and in Londonderry.

Gregory Campbell: Is the Minister aware of the increasing concern, particularly in border areas in Northern Ireland, about paramilitary groups in the Irish Republic, including the various factions of the IRA, who are making preparations for further bombs like the one to which she alluded? Thankfully, that was intercepted in Londonderry, but there are many more. Is she aware of the concern of people in Northern Ireland regarding those preparations?

Jane Kennedy: I am indeed aware of such concern in Northern Ireland. The dissident republicans continue to pose a serious threat. However, as I have said, due to the very good co-operation that exists between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana in the Republic of Ireland, there has been a large degree of success in dealing with dissidents in both the north and the south of Ireland. That success will continue, and I will continue to do all that is in my power to foster good co-operation between those law enforcement agencies.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Paul Burstow: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 June.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I know that the whole House will join with me in sending our deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in Iraq. The Royal Military policemen do an extraordinary and heroic job in trying to bring normal and decent life to people in Iraq, and the whole country and their families can be immensely proud of them, even as they mourn them. Our thoughts are also with those who were wounded after they were attacked in Iraq yesterday.
	May I also express on behalf of Members on both sides of the House our deep sadness at the death of Paul Daisley? He was a conscientious Member of Parliament who represented his constituency well, and he will be sadly missed. Our thoughts are with his family at this time.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Paul Burstow: I echo the Prime Minister's sentiments.
	May I ask the Prime Minister about a report that was submitted to this House by the health service ombudsman earlier this year, which revealed the scandal of elderly people being means-tested and charged for their health care? When will the Government act to compensate the thousands of elderly victims and reassert the principle that health care is free on the basis of need, regardless of a person's bank balance or age?

Tony Blair: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already introduced free nursing care for certain people. To extend that right the way through all types of care would cost well over 1 billion, possibly 1.5 billion. We believe that that money is better spent on trying to provide support for people in their own homes. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that as a result of that support, around 40 per cent. more people get support in their own homes today than did a few years ago.

Chris Ruane: Many MPs will have received hundreds of letters and cards on fair trade, and many will attend fair trade rallies in their high streets this Saturday. What message of hope and support can my right hon. Friend offer the fair trade movement; and what actions can he take to ensure that developing countries have the right to protect their vulnerable people and traders and to sell their products to rich countries, and that they are given assistance to regulate transnational companies?

Tony Blair: First, we will carry on with the most substantial increase in aid and development assistance that this country has seen. This Government are committed to continuing that support. Secondly, we will carry on trying to write off the debts of the most highly indebted countries, which are often prevented by the servicing of those debts from giving the assistance to their people that they need. Thirdly, we will make sure at the world trade round in Mexico in September that we get the action to move world trade forward so that we liberalise world trade and do not ask those poorer countries to stand on their own two feet, then deny them access to our own markets.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I join with the Prime Minister in sending our condolences to the family of Paul Daisley, the former Member for Brent, East?
	The Prime Minister is right that on today of all days we should pay tribute to the dedication and bravery of our armed forces on active service in Iraq. As the Prime Minister said, our deepest sympathies are with the families of the dead and wounded. There are those who will say after this news that we should back away from our obligations to Iraq. Does the Prime Minister agree that this instance should serve only to reinforce our resolve to bring peace and the rule of law to Iraq and to enable the Iraqis to take care of their own future?

Tony Blair: Yes, I agree completely. It is worth pointing out that despite yesterday's terrible events, the people of Iraq now have the prospect of hope for the future, and of a proper, prosperous and indeed democratic country. The work of British servicemen and women there is of immense importance not just to that country, but to the whole region and the wider world. Even at this moment in time, it is particularly important that we redouble our efforts to bring stability to that country, which is the surest way of bringing stability to the rest of the world.

Iain Duncan Smith: Clearly the security situation in Iraq remains difficult. There are reports that remnants of Saddam Hussein's army are still active and I understand that some non-Iraqis are involved in terrorist activities. Reports today indicate that British soldiers at al Majarr al Kabir may well have been the victims of an armed mob. Given all that speculation, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to give a personal and candid assessment of the security situation in Iraq today?

Tony Blair: First, we should know far more about the incident in the next 24 hours. This is the background; in the al Maysan province, the people liberated themselves from Saddam but British forces have attempted to make sure that the local populationwho regularly carried machine guns and small firearmswere disarmed of those weapons. There had been problems which may form part of the background. However, it is simply too early to say. We should be in a better position within the next 24 hours to know the origins of the group that attacked our forces.
	I should point out that there are some 14,000 British troops in theatre, with 10,000 in Iraq. We are also bringing in forces from other countries; over the next few weeks, 19 or 20 countries will be participating, with a total force of several thousand men. We are trying to make sure that, at every level, we have the troop requirements that we need. I spoke to the Chief of the Defence Staff this morning, who said that local commanders believe they have sufficient troops on the ground at present. Should they require more troops, we will make sure that they are available.

Iain Duncan Smith: As I have said, I believe that we must see this through. Given what the Prime Minister has just said about the security situation, what time scale does he envisage for the restoration of order in Iraq and, perhaps, for the eventual return of British troops?

Tony Blair: Already, we have reduced the British troop requirement; there were some 46,000 there during the conflict, and there are now 14,000 in theatre. I cannot be sure exactly when those troops can come home. However, we shall replace the troops that are there with others.
	I would assess the security situation like this: it is still obviously serious because, at present, former Ba'athist elements are trying to regroup and may pose a threat to our forces and particularly to the American forces in Baghdad. However, as a result of the work of British, American and other troops inside Iraq, a couple of thousand civilian policemen are back patrolling the streets of Basra. Many towns have now reinstituted proper political local councils. There are tremendous problemsas inevitably there will bebut it is important that we get a balance. There are also real improvements. Progress is being made in public services, with the reopening of hospitals, oil refineries and schools. The job, literally, is to rebuild the country and that will take time; however, it is necessary to take the time to get the job done.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend will share the concerns of many in this country about the deteriorating political and human rights situation in Burma and, in particular, the continued unwarranted arrest of the pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Will the Government press strongly for her immediate release, the release of all political prisoners in Burma and the restoration of democracy? Does he agree that in the circumstances, now is the time to stop British trade with Burma?

Tony Blair: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have made the strongest possible representations in respect not merely of the release of the leader of the opposition, but of the restoration of proper human and democratic rights in Burma. The European Union also issued a strong statement at the European Council. On trade, we are making it clear to British companies that we do not believe that trade is appropriate when the regime continues to suppress the basic human rights of its people.

Charles Kennedy: On behalf of my colleagues, may I also extend my sympathy to the family of Paul Daisley, following his sad passing? Our sympathy also goes, of course, to the grief-stricken families of the six murdered British soldiers and to those who have been so seriously injured, whom we wish Godspeed and a swift recovery. We link that to the shock that is being felt at the Colchester barracks, where the six lost soldiers came from. Let us hope that the authorities, or those responsible for these atrocities, will see sense and respond to the British field commanders' request this morning by handing over the culprits within the next 48 hours.
	In line with what the Prime Minister has just told the House, based on his conversations this morning, the armed forces Minister has indicated the desirability of internationalising the coalition. Will the Prime Minister tell the House which other countries would play a predominant role? For example, has he taken the opportunity to discuss with President Putin, during his state visit this week, what contribution Russia might make?

Tony Blair: I am sure that all those countries, particularly those represented on the Security Council, will want to play their full part. The assistance that Russia might give us is, of course, a matter that I can discuss with President Putin this week. As I said a moment ago, about 19 or 20 countries have pledged additional assistance. There are already soldiers of other nationalities in the British sector in Iraq, and that is set to build in the next few weeks. I have no doubt, particularly after the passing of the UN resolution, that we shall have a good response to our calls for assistance. I repeat, however, that at the present time the local commanding officers believe that they have sufficient troops for the job.

Charles Kennedy: On a related topic on Iraq, the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that, when the February dossier was approved for publication by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister himself had assumed that its contents had come through the normal channels. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, at the point at which he authorised the publication of that dossier, he was not aware that sections of it had been lifted from a student thesis on the internet?

Tony Blair: I can confirm that. I would also say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is important, amid all this coverage, to realise that the contents of that dossierand, indeed, of the first dossier which I presented to the Houseare accurate.

Jon Owen Jones: The Leader of the Opposition asked a question about time scales. Listening to Northern Ireland Questions earlier, I was reminded that that Province was still directly ruled from this place, more than 30 years after direct rule was put in place. We desperately require an exit strategy for Iraq, and some idea of the time scale for our troops remaining in that country.

Tony Blair: I think that there are better analogies in regard to what is happening in Iraq. If we look at Bosnia, Kosovo or Afghanistan, we see thatas is the case in Iraqat the height of a conflict there is a very large troop requirement. But the number of British troops now in Afghanistan, Kosovo or Bosnia is significantly reduced. Our exit strategy must be based on making sure that we maintain our pledge to help Iraq to be rebuilt as a stable and prosperous country, because if it is not rebuilt in that way, and if it were to continue under the type of regime that Saddam Hussein represented, it will continue to be a threat to the region and to the wider world. Even before this conflict began, during the 10, 11 or 12 years since the previous Gulf war ended, thousands of British troops have been patrolling the no-fly zone; so British troops have not been absent from Iraq since the end of the first Gulf war.

Boris Johnson: What does the Prime Minister have to say to the Kimber family in my constituency, who, like many thousands in this country, have been wrongly assessed under the child tax credit system? They have now been told to repay 2,447.70 by tomorrow and, if necessary, to remortgage their house to do so, because in the words of the collections adviser at Reading, Gordon Brown wants his money back. Is it any wonder that so few people are taking up this benefit?

Tony Blair: Of course I apologise to the hon. Gentleman's constituent for any mistake that has been made. He says that very few have taken up this benefit, but I think that somewhere in the region of 4 million people have done so. Whatever the circumstances of his constituent, for which I have already apologised, I think that most of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who are in receipt of this benefit will be appalled to know that the Conservative party is opposed to it and would take it away.

John Hume: As the Prime Minister is aware, I have written to him on several occasions about the dangers of Sellafield. Now that he has clear research evidence of the serious damage that Sellafield is doing to the Irish sea, does he not think that the time has come to close it down?

Tony Blair: I am afraid that I must say to my hon. Friend that I do not think that that is the case. I should point out to him that all these issues are governed by international rules that we are obliged to abide by, and by an international authority that determines whether we are obeying our international obligations properly. I should also point out that on each occasion this issue has been looked at, the allegations made in respect of Sellafield have turned out to be wrong.

Iain Duncan Smith: Has the Prime Minister ruled out any more increases in national insurance?

Tony Blair: The national insurance changes that we have put through are sufficient to make sure that we raise the money for the national health service. Any decisions are taken in the Budget, but the decisions that we have taken on national insurance are adequate for the health service rise in spending.

Iain Duncan Smith: Last week, the Prime Minister was forced to give a pledge not to raise the higher tax, but that pledge is worthless if he does not rule out increasing national insurance as well, because under Labour it is a tax on income that goes all the way up the income scale. So will he now pledge not to raise national insurance again, or do we have to get the Leader of the House to make a speech on that, too?

Tony Blair: What I have said to the right hon. Gentleman is that the national insurance rise is adequate to fund the health service spending that we have. He is right to say that that rise goes all the way up the income scalewe thought that the fair thing to do. The fact is that, as a result of that rise, there is money going into our national health service, there are 50,000 more nurses, in-patient and out-patient lists are far below what we inherited in 1997, and we have the largest ever hospital building programme under way.
	The plain fact of the matter is that we make no apology for having introduced that tax rise: it was the right thing to do to fund the national health service. The right hon. Gentleman, by opposing it, is opposed to that investment, and I assume from what he has just said that he would reverse it.

Iain Duncan Smith: Now we know that the Prime Minister's pledge of last week, like all his other tax pledges, is meaningless. Let me remind him that he is the man who said:
	We have no plans to increase tax at all
	and who then took an extra 5,500 from every household in Britain. He is the man who said that people shouldn't suppose that he planned to increase national insuranceand who then increased it by 8 billion. When the Leader of the House confessed last week that
	too many middle-income employees
	have been hit under Labour, was he not right? Was not his real crime that he committed new Labour's cardinal sin: he told the truth about Labour and tax rises?

Tony Blair: The tax take as a percentage of national income this year will actually be lower than in eight of the 11 years that Margaret Thatcher was in power. Secondly, we have given a lot of help to families through the working families tax credit and the child tax credit. It is correct that we have raised national insurance by 1 per cent., for the reasons that we have given. But I should also point out that as a result of the stable economy, we have more people in work today, living standards are up by 10 or 15 per cent., and we have more support for families and the lowest mortgages for 40 years.
	As for the extra money going into our schools and hospitals now, we make no apologies for that. It is the right thing to do, and the right hon. Gentleman has made it very clear today that, at the next election, people can choose either extra investment in health and schools with us, or 20 per cent. cuts across the board with him.

Andy Burnham: Every year more than 2,000 children in Greater Manchester have their teeth taken out under general anaesthetic. Is it morally right to allow them to go through that pain when we know of a safe and effective measure to reduce it? Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Water Bill will clear up and sort out the law on water fluoridation, giving communities in this country the power to choose it?

Tony Blair: As my hon. Friend knows, there are proposals to ensure that local people are properly consulted on issues connected with water fluoridation, but he also knows that there are strong views on both sides of the argument. The matter should be left with local people, as we have described. If the arguments in favour are as powerful as my hon. Friend says, I have no doubt that they will win the day.

Gregory Barker: Yesterday the Foreign Secretary described the dodgy dossier as a complete Horlicks, so is it time to say night, night to Alastair Campbell?

Tony Blair: As I said earlier, that part of the dossier was entirely accurate and the mistake of not attributing it was accepted at the time. I would simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in respect of that dossier and the first dossier, not a single fact in them is actually disputed.

Oona King: Will the Prime Minister condemn again the terror tactics that ruin Israeli lives? Will he also condemn the terror tactics that ruin Palestinian lives? In the west bank and Gaza strip, I saw widespread arbitrary detention and torture, expulsion from land and property, access denied to health care and water, and now a wall that will seal off Palestiniansin some cases, from their own families, farmland and livelihood. Does the Prime Minister believe that the humanitarian consequences of those policies are grave and that they undermine moderates at a time when we should all support the road map for peace?

Tony Blair: There is a lot in what my hon. Friend says. It is true that the very purpose of terrorism is to undermine the moderate voice of the Palestinians. The difficulty is that it is also right to say that literally scores of Israeli citizens are being killed in these appalling terrorist acts. That is why I tell my hon. Friend that we have made our position clear on extra-judicial killings by Israeli forces and on terrorism.
	It is important to recognise that unless we manage to get a security position in the Palestinian Authority whereby the terrorist attacks can at least be minimised, the Israeli Government will inevitably come under huge pressure to take retributive action. The only way through it, I am afraid, is to make sure that we get a proper process going with a security plan in place. That is what we are working for. To be quite honest, we can condemn as much as we like, but unless we have a viable security plan in place, it will be very difficult to make progress. That is why I hope that it will be in place as shortly as possible.

Alex Salmond: Did I hear the Prime Minister correctly when he described a plagiarised document with words and meanings altered as factually accurate? When exactly did he first realise that the dodgy dossier was a complete Horlicks? Was it after Colin Powell told the Security Council that it was a fine document with exquisite detail of deception? Why did he not tell the rest of us before taking this country to war?

Tony Blair: The reasons we went into this conflict are well known, as is the hon. Gentleman's position. He was opposed to it then, and he is opposed to it now. As to the facts set out in the dossier, they are correct. Whatever their provenance, it does not alter the fact that they are correct. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may disagree with the action that we took. That is his right, but I defend that action because it was the right thing for this country to do. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that removing Saddam from power and making sure that that country and region are stable and successful for the future is right for Iraq, right for the region and right for the wider world.

Brian H Donohoe: May I turn the Prime Minister's attention to premium bonds? Does he think that it is right that many of my constituents are barred from entry to premium bonds, given that the minimum amount that can be purchased is 100? That might be all right in the leafy suburbs, but could not that massive price be reduced, with the help of new technology, to allow all our constituents entry into that worthwhile savings scheme?

Tony Blair: It is certainly something that can be considered, but my hon. Friend will know what the problem is. If the minimum is lowered to too low a level, the bureaucratic costs of making the transactions are too great. He will know that the average purchase of premium bonds is some 4,500, so we would have to be sure that any change we made was not outweighed by disproportionate bureaucratic costs.

Martin Smyth: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our forces in Iraq and in sending our sympathy to the bereaved families? Will he join me in paying tribute to the continuing work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which faces difficulties locally but continues to serve this country abroad, including training police officers in Iraq?

Tony Blair: I certainly do pay tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and to all those police officers in Northern Ireland who do a superb job on behalf of their local community andas the hon. Gentleman rightly points outwho provide their services in different parts of the world, where their particular expertise and experience is invaluable.

Gordon Prentice: Are too many people paying the top rate of income tax?

Tony Blair: No, I am satisfied with the Government's tax plans, as my hon. Friend would expect.

Robert Syms: Why are teachers being made redundant in Poole this yearand many more facing redundancy next yearwhen education is meant to be the Government's priority?

Tony Blair: Let us be clear that overall there have been some 25,000 extra teachers. As a result of the funding issues with which we are familiar, a small number of teachers have been made compulsorily redundant. In fact, some teachers are made redundant every year. Overall, however, we have had a massive increase in the number of teachers over the past six years and the funding per pupil in our schools has risen significantly. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that whatever the problems of funding with schools in his or any other area, they cannot be improved by cutting back on education spending, which is the policy of his party.

David Stewart: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the proposals by the EU tax Commissioner to put VAT on stamps. That would be a backward step for our postal services and would have a disproportionate effect on the poor and elderly. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to veto any such proposal and send a letter back to the EU marked return to sender?

Tony Blair: Yes, we are not in favour of that proposal.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for his warm words of condolence. It was announced within the last hour that the six military policemen who lost their lives yesterday were all from the Colchester garrison. This is the darkest day for the garrison in the past 60 years, and I am sure that the whole House would wish to convey our condolences to the families of those six people.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Tony Blair: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure that he is right when he says that he speaks for the whole House.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that it is two years since we had the disturbances on the streets of Burnley. Last week, we celebrated the first annual general meeting of the building bridges project that was set up between the Muslim and Christian faiths in Burnley. Does he agree that it is communities working together, and the Government working with local councils, that will solve the problems of towns such as Burnley, and not the extremists who cause division wherever they go?

Tony Blair: I am sure that my hon. Friend's words will be echoed by the whole House. He is right that the building bridges project has been successful in trying to achieve better community relations. He is also right to say that those who advocate extremism, or who want to turn their anger on people who are immigrants to this country, do nothing for community relations or for their own local communities and peddle disastrous misconceptions and misrepresentations. The way forward is good, solid community relations between people of all faiths and backgrounds, and I believe that that vision is supported by the vast majority of people in the country.

David Heath: The head of MI5 has talked about the inevitability of a major terrorist threat. Whatever confidence we may have in our security services and emergency services, is it not the case that our civil preparedness is not as good as it should be? Why has it taken more than two years to produce even a draft Bill on civil contingencies? Why was the major exercise in London cancelled? Why have the Government no plans for an emergency broadcasting system? Are we really prepared?

Tony Blair: First of all, the head of the intelligence services was simply drawing attention to what has been said on many occasions, in respect not just of this country but of any western country. Indeed, we can see from the terrorist acts of the past few weeks that not only western countries are at risk from such attacks. These people will attack Muslims or people from any part of the world where they can perpetrate their terrorist atrocities. In relation to preparedness, the Government have spent literally hundreds of millions of pounds making this country more prepared. I pay tribute to the work of our intelligence services and of those in our public services. I believe that they have prepared this country as well as it possibly can be prepared for any such terrorist eventuality.

Points of Order

David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to you, as you are responsible for the accuracy of the Official Report, according to Erskine May. On 12 June, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from me, attributed words to me that were wrong. I took up the matter with the Editor of Hansard, who explained that he accepts the word of 10 Downing street as to the accuracy and origin of quotes supplied to Hansard. However, I now have a letter from the Prime Minister that fails to substantiate the words attributed to me, or their origin. Instead, it refers in general terms to a pamphlet on the European constitution that I wrote, which again does not contain the words attributed to me that were recorded in inverted commas in Hansard.
	May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you instruct that the Official Report be amended and corrected to make it clear that I did not use those words? More importantly, may I ask you to ensure that in future Hansard does not accept at face value assurances, quotes and information from 10 Downing street that are clearlyin this case and in othersdesigned to confuse and mislead?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that point of order. If he feels that he has been misrepresented, he must take the matter up with the Prime Minister. Hansard must report what is said in the House. It is for the hon. Member concerned, and not for Hansard, to take responsibility for remarks that are made and for any quotations that are used.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Scottish Question Time yesterday, in the full hearing of the House, the Secretary of State for Scotland described the Scottish Parliament as an assembly. The matter has been taken up substantially in the Scottish press today, the suggestion being that the Secretary of State is too busy to be in command of his brief. However, if we look at column 847 in the Hansard report for yesterday, we see that the word assembly has been deleted and the word Parliament inserted. Hansard staff are excellent, but that is a material change of meaning, as detailed in Erskine May. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland have the opportunity to tell us whether any of his staff, or the parliamentary secretary, had a hand in seeking that change? Will the Official Report be altered to reflect what actually happened, as opposed to what the Secretary of State for Scotland might want to have happened?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that yesterday the Official Report did edit the reference by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the assembly in Holyrood, and that it used the word Parliament instead. As Erskine May makes clear, it is normal practice for Hansard to correct obvious mistakes. That is what happened on this occasion.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, of course, are the guardian not only of the House but of each Member of the House. Am I right in saying that it is normal practice, if one Member of the House misrepresents another, deliberately or inadvertently, for the Member who had committed that inadvertent misdirection to correct themselves on the record? That would be an even-handed approach from one Member to another. The Prime Minister is a Member of this House; surely you, Mr. Speaker, have the right anddare I say it?the responsibility, in regard to the Prime Minister as a Member of this House, to exercise the same even-handedness that, as we know, you exercise with other Members. I simply ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you would like to ponder this as an issue, with regard to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said a moment ago. If not, there may be a suspicion among Members that the Prime Minister can get away with anything in this House and that he is not expected to meet the same standards of probity as other Members, rightly, are expected to do.

Mr. Speaker: Past events have shown that the Prime Minister knows that he does not get away with anything in this House. I am being asked to be a referee in these matters. I cannot instruct an hon. Member to withdraw in these circumstances. The Prime Minister will be able to note the right hon. Gentleman's point of order and my response; it is up to the Prime Minister then to decide what he might do about that matter, but it is not for me to instruct.

Alex Salmond: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your reply was excellent, as usual, but may I seek your advice? Is there any way, in parliamentary terms, for me to find out whether the staff of the Secretary of State for Scotland or the parliamentary secretary sought that change, which is of considerable moment and interest in Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter for the Editor of Hansard, not the staff. As the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have said, Hansard gives us an excellent service that is second to none.

Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer you to business questions last Thursday, when I posed a question to the Leader of the House? In reply, the right hon. Gentleman said:
	The vote for the Welsh block comes to the Secretary of State, and I then make a subvention for the purpose of running the Wales Officethat will continue
	The words that will continue are important, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
	and the remainder goes to the National Assembly.[Official Report, 19 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 51314.]
	However, today, The Western Mail, the national newspaper of Wales, states:
	The Wales Office confirmed last night that it had not yet been decided whether Lord Falconer, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, or Leader of the House of Commons Peter Hain would be responsible for 'top-slicing' the cost of the Wales Office from the Assembly's budget allocation.
	On Thursday, the Leader of the House cum Secretary of State for Wales cum Lord Privy Seal said that he would be responsible. Last night, his office told The Western Mail that it had not yet been decided who was responsible. As that money comes from the House's allocation, is top sliced by the Secretary of State and only then goes to the National Assembly of Wales, how can we clarify this matter and how can we ensure that there is cross-examination?

Mr. Speaker: That was not a point of order, but I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. Every week, Thursday comes around and we always have business questions; so perhaps, if he catches my eye, he can seek clarification tomorrow.

Angela Browning: Further to the points of order made by my right hon. Friends the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the shadow Leader of the House, Mr. Speaker. It is a rather old-fashioned concept, but one that I value, that all Members of the House are honourable Members and that is at the core of our procedures. You would, therefore, reprimand any Member who suggested that another Member had misled the Housethat is something that we try not to say in our proceedings. However, Mr. Speaker, the counterpoint is that if a Member, including a Prime Minister, says something that, on examination, proves not to be the case, it mustif we are all honourable Membersbe incumbent on the person who is found to be guilty of misleading to come to the House voluntarily to put the matter right on the record. Unless that honour is upheld, there will an increasing demand from Members that it should be the norm to identify when a Member has misled the House, because it clearly happens.

Mr. Speaker: I have nothing more to add to the previous statements that I have made, but, once again, I say that I cannot be the referee in these matters; it is up to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the Prime Minister to sort this matter out.

John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Most Members of Parliament have experience of using quotations and of being asked, absolutely properly and in accordance with precedent, by the Hansard writers to provide the source of those quotations. In absolutely accepting your ruling, as all Members do, may I simply ask for confirmation that it is the responsibility of a Member who quotes another to prove that the quotation is correct, not the responsibility of the Member aggressed against to disprove it?

Mr. Speaker: Once again, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot be drawn into these matters.

Historic Counties (Traffic Signs and Mapping)

John Randall: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law so as to require the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to mark the boundaries of the historic counties on its maps; to require traffic authorities to cause traffic signs to be placed on or near roads for the purpose of indicating the location of historic county boundaries; and for connected purposes.
	We live in an era when so much of our heritage and traditions seem to count for nothing and when, seemingly on the whim of those who find history an irrelevance, institutions can be dispensed with, without so much as a by your leave. Yes, I will unashamedly admit that I am in favour of traditions. However, sad though it is to admit, I have to acknowledge that things move on. To me and to many others, the historic counties of this country have a real significance.
	I am not trying to turn back the clock for counties to become the administrative authorities once again. I am not even attempting to get self-rule for Middlesex, however tempting that might beI hope, perhaps, to return to that another day. All that I am asking is that those historic counties' place in our heritage is recognised. They have played a prominent role in our national life for more than a thousand years, and their names and areas are widely used in tourism, sport, business, local and family history, military history, literature and the arts. They are a source of identity and affection for many people, and they have been the basis for an unchanging, recognisable and stable geography.
	Now, all that is at risk. The link between local government and the historic counties has been broken throughout much of the country. Quite frankly, some of the names of the more modern administrative areas have not really got the same ring to them. In Scotland, for example, in my opinion the title Central Region is not exactly evocative. Goodness knows what the bureaucrats will come up with in the future. They will probably number the counties, so I might live in region 3B.
	My Bill would introduce just two of the measures that have been proposed by the Association of British Counties, under the admirable chairmanship of Mr. Michael Bradford. Those aspirations are shared by many other county trusts, such as mine in Middlesex, where Mr. Russell Grant is such a champion, not just for us Middle Saxons, but for all the counties. All I ask is that signs, such as the brown and white tourism signs, be placed to mark the county boundaries and a duty be placed on the Ordnance Survey to mark those boundaries on larger-scale maps.
	Perhaps it is unfashionable to be proud of our past and our heritage. I am self-evidently not cool, and some Labour Membersand even people outside the Housemay say in today's parlance that I am quite sad. [Hon. Members: No.] Sad I may be, but I am immensely proud of the history of my county and my country. That is why I ask the House to support the Bill today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Randall, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Adrian Flook, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Hugo Swire, Mr. David Wilshire and Sir Nicholas Winterton.

Historic Counties (Traffic Signs and Mapping)

Mr. John Randall accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law so as to require the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to mark the boundaries of the historic counties on its maps; to require traffic authorities to cause traffic signs to be placed on or near roads for the purpose of indicating the location of historic county boundaries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 134]. Opposition Day

[11th Allotted Day]

Tuition Fees

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Damian Green: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the views of the National Union of Students about university tuition fees; and believes that the consequence of the Government's proposal relating to tuition fees will be to act as a severe deterrent to many students from hard-working but less well-off families, who will not be eligible for the 1,000 maintenance grant, from applying to university.
	As Conservative Members believe in inclusiveness, I should point out at the start that we are happy to mention in our motion the views of the National Union of Students, which has come out strongly against the Government's plans to make university education much more expensive. We also welcome the support of Members on both sides of the House who signed the early-day motion supporting the NUS campaign against fees. I am sure that, having publicly supported that early-day motion, they will welcome another chance to make that stance of principle clear to their constituents.
	This is also my first opportunity to welcome formally the new Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education to his post. The Times Higher Education Supplement described his purpose as reinforcing the Prime Minister's assault on ivory towers. To continue the spirit of inclusiveness, may I plead with him not to go down that route? Our world-class universities deserve congratulation and support, not the sniping that they have occasionally received from parts of this Government, notably from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am confident that the Minister will not follow that ill-advised way of proceeding.
	I shall divide my remarks between the effects of the Government's policy and those of our alternative: on students, on the issue of how to make access fairer and, finally, on the universities themselves. I also want to deal with some of the more serious critiques of our policy, as they deserve a considered response. There are some less considered critiques around, including one from the Labour party political communications unit, copies of which seemed to be widely available around the House yesterday. I am grateful to the large number of Labour Members who wanted to share their copies with us.
	Let me first remind the House of the key difference between Conservative Members and the Government on this issue. The Government's proposals amount to a new tax on learning: 3,000 a year for students at some universities, leaving them with debts that will hang over them for many years to come. That, of course, is one in a long line of betrayals. Just before the 1997 election, Labour said:
	we have no plans to introduce tuition fees.
	Just after the 1997 election, Labour introduced tuition fees. Just before the 2001 election, Labour said:
	We will not introduce top-up fees.
	Just after the 2001 election, Labour introduced top-up fees. Now, the Government are saying that 3,000 will be kept as the upper limit for the next Parliament. With form like that, I am afraid that even the Secretary of State for Education at his most charmingly eloquent will not be believed.
	I sympathise with those Labour MPs who have unwittingly deceived their constituents. They should stick to their convictions, however. They should not even be worriedif they areabout being branded as rebels. In a recent interesting speech on public services, the remark was made:
	The essence of our reforms is to keep true to the principle of your citizenshipnot your wallet entitling you to decent services.
	That quote sums up the Conservative approach to higher education and the approach of many on the Labour Back Benches and, I suspect, on the Liberal Democrat Benches. What it does not do, however, is reflect the Government's approach. It is therefore noteworthy that it is a quote from the Prime Minister in his latest relaunch of the Government. The gap between words and action is breathtaking. I agree with the Prime Minister's sentiment that it should not be our wallets that entitle us to decent services. I just wish that he would apply that to his own policy on higher education, with which he is marching firmly in the opposite direction.
	By contrast, the next Conservative Government will scrap all tuition feesnot only the Government's new top-up fees, but all fees. We will save students 9,000 of the debt burden over the period of a normal university course. We will scrap the arbitrary 50 per cent. admission target. We will scrap the access regulator, which is the latest piece of bureaucracy to drain independence away from universities. The best way to make access to university free and fair is to make education free and for admissions to be fair and decided on merit and potential alone.

David Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman says that he will scrap all tuition fees, but he knows that the majority of students in the United Kingdom study at further education colleges. Would he scrap tuition fees for further education colleges?

Damian Green: I shall deal with vocational education later in my speech, because I agree that it is important. One of this country's historic failures has been not to take vocational education sufficiently seriously for almost 50 years. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would agree with one of the problems that I lay at the Government's door: the 50 per cent. target and overemphasis on higher education has had the precise effect of devaluing vocational qualifications and further education.

Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who I believe signed the early-day motion on which our motion is based.

Anne Campbell: I want to comment on the hon. Gentleman's proposal to abolish tuition fees. Is he aware that almost 50 per cent. of students do not pay tuition fees because they come from families with such a low income that they do not have to? Does he agree that his proposal is designed to benefit the better-off in society and not the poorer students whom he purports to support?

Patrick McLoughlin: So why did you sign the early-day motion?

Damian Green: I agree with my hon. Friend: it was slightly perverse of the hon. Lady to sign the early-day motion if she opposed the sentiments behind it. She will know that there is some doubt about the Government's position on the top-up fees element. The Secretary of State wavers between saying that poorer students will be exempt from all fees and that they will be exempt only from the existing 1,100noises have suggested one thing or another. If it turns out that even the poorest students must pay a top-up element, the hon. Lady should agree that her point becomes invalid. I hope that we will receive some reassurance from the Secretary of State during the debate.
	The Secretary of State and the Government as a whole will be aware of the large and growing coalition that they have assembled against them on tuition fees. Let me explain why, first from the students' perspective. Barclays bank estimates that the average debt for students in 2002 will be 12,000, which is a rise of 28 per cent. on the previous year. A UNITE survey shows that debt among third-year students has increased by 61 per cent. The consequences of that are shown in a NatWest survey that says that the number of sixth formers who considered not going to university purely because of fees rose from 34 per cent. in 2000 to 50 per cent. in 2002. Half of all sixth formers consider not going to university only because of fees. That is the situation before the Government put up the fees even more.

David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: I shall give the hon. Gentleman one more chance.

David Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the debt that he is quoting is to a large extent incurred on credit cards issued by the very banks that conducted the surveys?

Damian Green: That might be true, but a debt is a debt if a student has to pay it. The body to which the debt is owed does not especially matter to a student, although clearly different interest rates are involved. The essential point of the debate is that, irrespective of to whom students owe debt, they will owe 9,000 more under the Labour Government's proposal than under ours. That is the key fact that students and their parents and families will face when they decide at the next election.

David Rendel: rose

Clive Efford: rose

Damian Green: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) first.

Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his party would pay for eradicating fees by reducing the number of people who may go to university?

Damian Green: I have already said that we would abolish the 50 per cent. targetI am glad that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention. The university sector would be smaller and better focused under a Conservative Government than under the Labour Government.

Patrick McLoughlin: I do not think that we should be apologetic on this point. Back in 1979, one in eight people went to university. By the time we left government in 1997, the figure was one in three. Our party has an incredibly good record on widening access. We should provide access for those who deserve the education.

Damian Green: Absolutely. We need fair access based on merit alone. I shall deal later with problems of access for poorer social groups that have persisted throughout the long period of expansion under both Governments. Those problems deserve serious attention. I know that the Government are trying to solve them simply by expanding the rate of participation and I shall demonstrate to the House that that is not working.

David Rendel: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that the main reason for abolishing tuition fees and top-up fees is that they discourage people from wanting to go to university. He also admitted that under his scheme there would be fewer university places than there are now. Surely it is perverse to encourage more people to go to university but to provide fewer places for them.

Damian Green: We will encourage everyone who has the potential and who will benefit from it to go to university. The rising drop-out rate makes it clear that some people being enticed to university do not benefit from it. It does not need politicians and planners to tell them that, because they drop out in rising numbers and know that they are not benefiting.
	I half agree with the hon. Gentleman that the growing debt crisis is the reason why the Government have assembled such a powerful coalition in opposition to their proposals. Penny Hollings of the National Union of Students said:
	The Conservative Party has correctly identified just how unpopular tuition fees have been and the catastrophic effect that top-up fees would have.
	A spokesperson for the Association of Teachers and Lecturers said:
	We would welcome the abolition of university tuition fees, which are particularly problematic for low-paid graduates going to make their careers in the public services.
	Doug McAvoy of the National Union of Teachers said:
	The Conservatives' proposal to scrap university fees is a welcome move in the right direction.
	I was especially delighted to receive a measure of support from the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who is sadly not in the Chamber. He said in The Times that our policy was
	one that many people in the Labour party agree with.
	I am grateful for that support.

Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend realise that this goes further? Is he aware of studies undertaken by Loughborough university, Warwick university, the university of London and many others that show that although the number of people from poorer middle-class backgrounds who go to university is increasingI am sure that the Secretary of State will point that outthe number is decreasing as a percentage of the whole student cohort? As a percentage of the total number of people who go to university, people from poorer backgrounds are being deterred because of the debt that would arise.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is right, and common sense suggests that that would be true. People who come from families that are not used to dealing with large debt are more likely to be discouraged by the prospect of long-term debt.
	The Royal Academy of Engineering, which speaks for many of the professions, commented on the Government's proposals:
	There is a fear that proposals contained within the White Paper regarding student debt and the setting of course fees will deter students from undertaking courses in more expensive subjects, including, particularly, science, engineering, and technology.
	Although Ministers say that part of the reason for expanding the higher education sector to meet their 50 per cent. target is precisely to make British industry more competitive, they should listen to the experts. They are deterring people from undertaking more expensive courses: not only important courses for industry but, of course, medicine and other courses.

Tom Harris: Why does the hon. Gentleman not include in his list of quotes what Professor Nicholas Barr of the London School of Economics said in May 2003:
	If places are rationed, then the middle class with their sharp elbows will monopolise them, so it is inequitable. If middle-class students go to university proportionately more than they do now, then they will be paid for by poor people?

Damian Green: I am glad that we are joined by visitors from Scottish constituencies, to whom the debate does not apply. I am also glad that the hon. Gentleman got as far as page 20 of Labour's document. I shall deal with Professor Barr later on. His critique is serious and interesting, but it is also almost completely wrongheaded.
	The debt problem is real, but the Government's response has always been that it is worth getting into debt because graduates earn so much more. In that context, the previous Minister for higher education, now the Minister for Children, whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber, came up with the risible figure of 400,000 extra. I would advise her successor to pay serious attention to a number of pieces of work carried out over the past few months, some of it by the Government themselves. The latest edition of an annual survey by High Fliers Research of 15,000 students graduating this summer shows that starting salaries, which have risen for the past decade, are now falling. The typical starting salary expected by a graduate has dropped from 18,700 in 2002 to 18,500 this year.
	The Government's own Higher Education Statistics Agency says that more than a third of graduates last year could not find a job at all or had to settle for a low-skilled job. Some 40 per cent. of 2002 graduates thought that their degree was more or less a waste of time, money and effort. As I am going through Government publications, Ministers might also want to take a look at Labour Market Trends to see the variation in earnings of students who left school with two or more A-levels. Those with degrees in some subjects, like law, maths and economics, can expect earnings about 25 per cent. higher than average, but returns on other subjects are sharply lower. Social studies brings about a 10 per cent. premium, but education and languages have returns close to zero. On average, arts degrees show a negative return. Those graduates earn less than if they had not done a degree at all.
	It seems likely that Government policy, which has pushed up the proportion of young people going to universityas I said, they plan to increase that by 50 per cent.has also had an effect. At present, students leave university with debts on average of 12,000. If the Government have their way, that average debt will rise to 27,000, but if the returns on higher education continue to fall as the price of higher education rises, will people want more of it or less? The Government's policy is perverse even in their own terms. The idea that graduates should be uniquely penalised for their learning because a degree always and everywhere leads to future riches is nonsense.
	Our policy is justified not least by its effect on reducing the burden of student debt. I was interested to read the work of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is publishing a report today showing that the average graduate with no career break would be relieved of the burden of debt three years earlier under our proposals than under the Government's proposals. That in itself will act as an encouragement to potential students from less well-off backgrounds to apply for university.

David Chaytor: But is it not the case that that IFS report also criticises wholeheartedly the Conservative party's proposals precisely because they shift responsibility for financing higher education on to poorer people?

Damian Green: Is that on the basis of the assumption, which the IFS is clear about, that poor people will not be deterred by the extra burden of debt, because I disagree with the IFS on that? As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) explained, and as common sense would suggest to the hon. Gentleman, people who come from families with no tradition of dealing with mortgage debt or large debts are more likely to be deterred. I agree with some of the IFS report, but not all of it.

Michael Fabricant: We need not believe my hon. Friend on that matter. We can take the advice of the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who said in her news release:
	for many lower income families
	I am quoting, Mr. Speaker, so Hansard can take note
	the fear of debt is a real worry and
	does
	act as a bar to higher education.
	She made that very point before resigning.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman states the blindingly obvious.

Damian Green: I am glad the Minister agrees with us. In his new role, he has a chance to change his Government's policy so that it recognises the blindingly obvious.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: I have given way enough.
	The second issue that concerns me is access. One matter that unites hon. Members on both sides of the House is that anyone with the potential to benefit from a university degree should not be denied that because of their social or economic background. The question is whether the Government's policy of simply expanding the sector is the best way to achieve that.
	If the Government were right in their contention that higher numbers mean wider access, they would have a case, but the evidence is absolutely plain that higher numbers do not change the social mix of universities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, there has been a huge expansion of numbers under successive Governments, but the social mix in universities, as the Secretary of State recognises, has not changed much over that period, despite the expansion in student numbers from something under 10 per cent. to something over 40 per cent.
	Indeed, over the past six years, expansion has continued at a headlong rate under this Government, who are specifically committed to solving the problem, yet the participation rate among the poorer social groups has not changed. However, the key to thatand the key mistake that the Government are makingis that it is a problem not of our universities, but of our schools. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education himself made the crucial point on Monday when he said:
	once youngsters from working-class backgrounds get to the stage of acquiring two A-levels, nine out of 10 of them go on to a university education.[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 738.]
	That is exactly the right point to make. There is no point in fiddling with university admissions to allow fairer access; what we have to do is improve our secondary schools so that wherever people come from, they have a chance of getting A-levels and aspiring as high as they like.
	The facts are plain, but the Government are choosing to ignore them and go off down the road of a new access regulator, who will tie universities up in red tape, make them sign agreements before they can charge the top-up fees, and generally threaten them until they replace admissions on academic merit with admissions on the grounds of political ideology. That is a gross interference in the freedom of universities and a straightforward attack on the principle of fairness. Indeed, that is already happening. I am sure that Ministers and many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have seen article in The Sunday Times headlined Top universities offer poor students lower entry grades. It says:
	Top universities are lowering A-level grade demands for
	certain students
	to meet government targets, according to confidential papers.
	The report reveals that a number of universities
	have responded to ministerial pressure with schemes that allow students to win places with as much as two grades below standard offers.
	Ministers should consider what effect reading that story in the Sunday papers has on parents, students and sixth-formers in particular, from all social backgrounds. They know that ministerial intervention means that their entry to university is not on the basis of hard work and academic potential, but on the basis of what suits a Government who are trying to hit their targets. That political interference in university entrance is disgraceful. We all agree that university is one of the most important ladders for many people. I agree with Professor Alan Smithers, who said:
	Universities should be looking for students with potential and it is patronising to suggest they are more likely to be found in particular postcode areas.
	The third thing that is worth noting is the effect on the university sector itself. The Government have a novel approach to university education: pile it high and sell it expensive. The effects of that are already becoming apparent. Drop-out rates are getting higher. Some universities are seeing more than 40 per cent. of their students drop out. Can those few Labour Members who support their Government's policy say how that is fair or compassionate? To encourage young people to get into debt and to start on a course that they rapidly realise is not going to do them any good is yet another example of the harmful effect of arbitrary targets in the education sector. Successive Education Secretaries have become addicted to those targets. The 50 per cent. university admission target is one of the most harmful, which is why we will get rid of it.
	We need a university sector that is properly focused, offering degrees that mean something to those who can benefit from them. Bigger does not necessarily mean better. Does every current course provide proper value for the student? The previous Minister with responsibility for higher education made a notorious insult about Mickey Mouse degreesa phrase that I have never used except when attributing it to her. The Secretary of State has cast aspersions on mediaeval history and classics, although on both occasions he retreated sharply and wisely in the face of opposition. We need proper, objective criteria for judging whether a course is worth while or not so that prejudices, whether against medieaval history or media studies, do not become the basis of policy. It is clearly sensible to look at drop-out rates, the qualifications required to take up a course and a range of other factors. However, it is clear that the university sector needs to be better focused.
	We need to pay more attention to vocational qualifications, a point made in one of the multitude of interventions by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). I suspect that he and I would agree that this country has an historic problem in not taking high-level vocational education seriously enough and that there is not enough of it on offer. In many cases, vocational education will give people a better start in life and a better chance to realise their full potential than what the Minister for Children referred to as Mickey Mouse degrees. Professor Barr and others have asked how that vocational education is to be provided, a point that the hon. Member for Bury, North also made in an intervention.
	The choice for many children who are left behind every year by the system is not university or vocational education but vocational education or nothing. The relevant financial calculation is not university versus vocational education costs but vocational education costs versus the cost of unemployment benefit, the new deal for young people, police and judicial actions, the impact of crime and economic dependency on others. On 9 June, David Bell, the head of Ofsted wrote wisely in the New Statesman that at 16
	you're looking at one in five people that we know really do not go anywhere at the end of compulsory schoolingneither to further schooling nor education.
	The idea that all the money for vocational education has to come out of the higher education pot is therefore mistaken.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. Would he further agree that the figures that he gave earlier on graduates show that in many areas the economy does not need extra graduates? By contrast, the building industry and many other industries desperately need more trained tradesmen.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for allowing me to make the point that the CBI and the TUC estimate that the cost of the skills shortage to the British economy is 10 billion a year or about 170 for every man, woman and child. The idea that a lack of graduates is undermining skills is nonsensethe problem is actually poor vocational education. I want to address the point about money directly because business spends 23 billion of private sector money a year on training, more than three times the amount that the Government spend on equivalent education through the Learning and Skills Council. A change in the mix so that more importance is given to vocational education would greatly increase the potential for private sector money. The funding mix in higher education is 60 per cent. public: 40 per cent. private. If we increased the importance of vocational education in the educational mix, we would attract much more private sector money. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made the point that by doing so we would improve the skills base and address directly a problem that has dogged our economy for years. It does not relate to the number of graduates but the long tail of completely unskilled people. That is not a charge against the present Government, as the problem has dogged us for 50 years. However, it is an area where the education system is still failing badly, and where the economy has failed badly. We should therefore pay attention to the long tail of completely unskilled people in this country.

David Wright: I understand the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the need to attract further private sector resources, an initiative for which there would be a cross-party welcome. However, evidence suggests that that needs to be pump-primed by public sector resources, which would require an uplift. Is the hon. Gentleman planning for that in his programme?

Damian Green: The Government are already spending 5.3 billion on the learning and skills councils, so a very large pump is priming money

Charles Clarke: The figure is 8.5 billion.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Somebody on the Learning and Skills Council board told me that it has a budget three times that of the Royal Navy. I do not know whether that is true, but if it is, or if the sum is anything like that, the pump is big enough. We need to spend money effectively and attract private sector money, because that sector will put money into things that it finds useful. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education would describe that as blindingly obviously, but Government policy appears to ignore it.
	The Government are trying to push more and more people into something called degree courses, which are of no benefit to the student and have no merit in the eyes of private industry. We are therefore not improving the life chances of the young people who go on those courses. That is a mad route from the viewpoint of the Treasury, students, the university sector and the country.
	I said that I would deal with serious educational critiques, notably that of Professor Barr. He is a distinguished economist, but his analysis reminds us that all economists are wrong some of the time, and most economists are wrong most of the time. The first problem in Professor Barr's analysis arises when he states that higher education is a general good for the economy and society and must be regarded as such. However, he also says that it is unfair to ask the general taxpayer, who may be a non-graduate, to bear the cost. One can hold one or other of those views but one cannot coherently hold both. If higher education is a general good, the taxpayer should subsidise it. The second problem arises when Professor Barr claims that student loans do not lead to debt, because they are paid back as a payroll deduction. One has to be a really clever economist to believe something as silly as that. If someone leaves university knowing that they have to pay back 20,000 or 25,000, they will feel that they have a very large debt to repay, whether it is going to a credit card company or coming out of their pay packet.

Mark Hendrick: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman referred to mortgage debt, but most people would regard a mortgage as an investment. Clearly, debt is a bit like crimethe fear of debt is quite a lot worse than debt itself. Why does the hon. Gentleman not pursue his own analogy with mortgage debt and call student debt an investment?

Damian Green: Millions of graduates want to pay off their student debt and take out a mortgage to buy a house. The fact that the Government are imposing on them a colossal burden of debt prevents them from taking out a mortgage, often into their late 30s. It is not a question of choosing between the twothe choice to take out a mortgage is being taken away from people.
	The third problem in Professor Barr's analysis arises when he claims that the universities need money, but ignores the effect of the fees. I would urge him and Government Members to read the HSBC study published earlier this week which says that fees could tip poorer, less prestigious universities over the edge into bankruptcy by making it harder for them to attract students. It is therefore not obvious that fees will attract more money into the sector. The fourth problem in Professor Barr's analysis is his claim, which Ministers like to repeat, that students get their higher education freeit is graduates who make repayments. That is sophistry. People cannot become graduates unless they have been students. To claim that students are a completely different group from future graduates is plain nonsense. I am afraid that the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education attempted to repeat that canard on Monday, but I hope that he spares the House today.
	Professor Barr's analysis is based on a series of deeply questionable assumptions, and I simply disagree with it. If it is the best that the Government can come up withProfessor Barr's analysis occupies five or six pages of the document that they handed out prior to the debateI am afraid that they are skating on thin ice.
	Students and their parents have been let down by the Government's proposals. Universities have been leaned on to meet political, not academic, priorities. We have tried tuition fees and they failed to give a fair deal to students or universities. Our policy of scrapping fees and making this vital part of our education system once again free for everyone offers them the fair deal that they need and deserve. I commend the motion to the House.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	rejects any proposal to abolish the existing fee of 1,100, which would lead to substantial reductions in the numbers of places in higher education and, as a consequence, fewer lecturers and a lower quality higher education experience; congratulates the Government on its plan to abolish up front tuition fees and to raise the threshold for repayment of loans from 10,000 to 15,000; welcomes the steps that the Government is taking to widen participation amongst students from deprived backgrounds, the establishment of the Office for Fair Access, the introduction from 200405 of a 1,000 grant for students from the poorest backgrounds and better support for part-time students; condemns any proposal to withdraw the funding that is already being spent on widening participation, which would lead to fewer students from deprived backgrounds entering higher education and completing their degrees; and supports the continued expansion in participation planned by the Government and the part to be played by foundation degrees designed in collaboration with employers as an appropriate strategy to equip the UK workforce with the high level skills needed to compete in the global marketplace.
	I welcome the debate, as it gives us the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals of the Conservative party. It is necessary to scrutinise those proposals, as Conservative Members have refused to attend the Select Committee to discuss the proposals in detail, as I and my ministerial colleagues have done and, to give credit to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), as he and his colleague in the upper House have done, so that there is proper full debate of the issues at an important time.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that Select Committees are appointed to examine the Executive, not to examine other parties' policies? It is the Executive that the Select Committee is appointed to monitor. For the Secretary of State to make the accusation that he has just made shows his lack of understanding of the function of Select Committees.

Mr. Speaker: It is up to a Select Committee to interpret the rules of the House, so it would be up to a Select Committee to decide what it would examine.

Charles Clarke: I understand that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) declined the invitation of the Select Committee to discuss his proposals in detail. As I said, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough deserves credit on behalf of his party for accepting.

Damian Green: I should put on the record what happened. At 2 pm on the relevant day, an e-mail arrived in my office inviting me to appear the following morning. Before I had even seen that e-mail, my office was rung up by the press, asking why I had declined. By any standards, the procedure was disgraceful and I have not yet had a satisfactory explanation of it from the Select Committee.

Charles Clarke: That clarification is helpful. I am grateful for it, though the Liberal Democrats deserve credit for coming to the Select Committee and discussing their proposals, even though I acknowledge that that gave rise to the comprehensive and forensic demolition

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise me and other hon. Members whether it is normal practice in the House that when a Member accuses another Member of doing something, which is then proven to be wrong, and is acknowledged to be wrong, that person shows good behaviour in the House and withdraws the accusation that he made?

Mr. Speaker: The whole point of a debate is that hon. Members can rebut any case that is made against them. There will be an opportunity to do so.

Charles Clarke: I began my speech by saying that I welcomed the debate because it gave us the chance to scrutinise the proposals of the Conservative party.

David Rendel: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways in which a Select Committee may be able to test out the policies of the Government would be to compare them with other, alternative policies?

Charles Clarke: I agree, but the comprehensive and forensic demolition of the Liberal Democrat proposals by my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education last Monday showed why the debate is so important.

David Chaytor: With reference to the Conservative spokesman's invitation to the Select Committee, is it not the case that following the original invitation, which was on the same terms as that to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, there was a subsequent invitation, inviting him to come at a time of his choosing?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should go back to the main point of the debate. The Select Committee and who gives evidence is nothing to do with the debate.

Charles Clarke: I agree, Mr. Speaker.

Damian Green: The answer to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) is no. He isinadvertently, I am sureseeking to mislead the House.

Charles Clarke: Let us move on. The main point that I sought to make is that it is critical that the whole Houseall partiesfaces up to the issues concerning the future of higher education, as the Government tried to do in our proposals.

John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Charles Clarke: I will give way on that point, then I will make progress.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Given that he is all in favour of information and scrutiny, would he care to tell the House why, in the opinion poll conducted by ICM, 36 per cent. of respondents said that education and schools had got worse under Labour, and the trend over the past three months represents a 17 per cent. deterioration? Is it his fault, or would he care to blame it on someone else?

Charles Clarke: I do not intend to blame anybody. I intend to debate the higher education question, which I thought the Conservative party wanted to debate this afternoon.
	If we are looking for an authoritative assessment of the alternative proposals, we need to look no further than the report published today by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I quote from its press release, which sets out the situation clearly:
	New research from the IFS compares the reforms proposed by the two parties
	meaning the Conservative party and the Government
	looking at the effect on student and graduate finances, the distributional impact on households with different incomes, and the cost to the Exchequer and taxpayers in general. We
	that is, the IFS
	find that:
	Under both proposals, students would be better off while at university than under the current system.
	That is important.
	The press release goes on to state that, secondly,
	The overall cost to the taxpayer would be about the same under both systems;
	thirdly,
	For a given amount of government spending, more students
	more students
	could go to university under the White Paper proposals because graduates would be contributing extra money;
	and fourthly,
	The Conservative proposals
	again, the words of the IFS
	would benefit the richest households more than the Government proposals, while the poorest households would be worse off.
	Same old Tories.
	The press release goes on to say that if the Government's White Paper proposals were adopted, there would be
	A redistribution of income from poorer to richer households
	and
	Households in the poorest income decile would lose 1.5 per cent. of their income on average, while households in the top income decile would gain by around 0.4 per cent. from this switch in funding regimes.
	It goes on to explain why. That is an authoritative assessment of the two proposals in terms of distribution and equity.

Tim Boswell: Apart from the fact that the Secretary of State omitted the middle paragraph, which he might like to share with the House, would he like to clarify his status in the matter today? Was it, for example, the IFS study that persuaded him to change his mind when, in common with five other right hon. and hon. Members who grace the Government Benches, he is a former president of the National Union of Students? Was he wrong then and is he now persuaded, or why is there the difference now?

Charles Clarke: I shall come to the National Union of Students, but if the hon. Gentleman would like me to read out the middle paragraph of the IFS document, I shall do so. It deals with financial effects on students and graduates. It states:
	The financial impact on students while they are at university would be essentially the same under the two proposals. However, once they finish studying, the effects on graduates could differ significantly.
	The document goes on to make the point that the hon. Member for Ashford made in his speech, that the IFS research indicates that what it calls the average graduate would make loan repayments for seven years under the current system, eight years under the Conservative proposals and 10 years under the White Paper proposals. [Interruption.] The figure on my press release is 10 years. Mine is the printed version.
	The core point that I make in citing the analysis is that the explicit purpose of the Conservative proposal, as confirmed by the IFS, is to benefit the richest householders, while the poorest householders would be worse off. We should never forget that.
	I now come to the National Union of Students. I was very interestedalmost flatteredthat the NUS was cited in the motion.
	What is the NUS's view of the Conservative proposals. The NUS president, Mandy Telford, says:
	We
	meaning the NUS
	cannot endorse proposals that would shut the door on future generations and return higher education to the preserve of a privileged few. Nor should we accept a scheme that will continue to leave institutions bereft of cash and struggling to give students the quality of education they deserve.
	She went on to say:
	The Tories would pay for abolishing fees by simply axing thousands on thousands of courses up and down the country. Further, they would abandon all the laudable attempts to reach out to people from backgrounds chronically under represented in further and higher education.
	Those are the views of the NUS on the Conservatives' proposals, and I find it slightly extraordinary that they cite the NUS's views in their motion as the NUS is so bitterly critical of their proposals.
	The truth of the Conservative proposals is that they mean less students, less resources for universities and less independence for universities from the state.

Anne Campbell: Would my right hon. Friend also agree that a reduction in graduates has an impact on the economy, and that fewer graduates mean that future economic growth will decline rather than increase?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend, characteristically, is correct. That is the situation and that is why the investment in this population is so critical.

David Rendel: As the right hon. Gentleman has quoted the NUS president, Mandy Telford, he might like to know that, according to the BBC today, she has also said:
	Neither the government nor the Conservatives have got it right with their plans to fund higher education. Neither of them are providing students with the support that they need to get through university.

Charles Clarke: She has indeed said that. She has criticisms of the White Paper, as she has made clear. What I wanted to point out as clearly as I could was that her criticisms of the Conservative party's proposals are very sharp and very direct.

Paul Goodman: The Secretary of State has just confirmed his view that the more graduates there are the more growth there is in the economy. If that is the case, will he explain why, using his own logic, he wants to restrict the target to 50 per cent.? Why not 60 per cent., 70 per cent. or even 100 per cent.?

Charles Clarke: The comparisons with other countries are instructive. New Zealand is on 70 per cent., Sweden is on 67 per cent., and Australia and Norway are on 59 per cent. Those are the investments that other countries are making because of the knowledge economy and the world to which we are moving. That is why we have to address the matter.
	The key point that has not been appreciated enough in the country and which I want to ram home today is the impact of the Conservative proposals on the number of students. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said it in his subtle way last Monday when he said:
	Some of our less successful higher education activity might be curtailed.[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 748.]
	The hon. Member for Ashford was rather blunter on 13 May. He said:
	The number of students will be reduced . . . Under the Conservatives the university sector will be smaller.
	According to The Guardian today, he said:
	If the sector needs to be a bit smaller then it is no bad thing. We are not dogmatic about that.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Charles Clarke: No I will not.

Michael Fabricant: Why not?

Charles Clarke: Because I am making my speech and I shall continue to do so. We are going to get into an interesting logical philosophical debate about the nature of never and the meaning of meaning, which I look forward to. I shall discuss the meaning of hair and where it is.
	There is no doubt that under the Conservative party's proposals there would be a significant reduction in the number of students in this country. Professor Barr, whose statements the hon. Member for Ashford does not like, estimated a figure between 79,000 and 150,000 less students. [Hon. Members: Fewer.] My estimate is that the effect of his proposals would be a reduction of about 90,000 places in higher education in Britain. That means about 50 places for every sixth form or sixth form college in the country. Every sixth form or sixth form college will have young people coming through unable to go to university if the hon. Gentleman's proposals were to be carried through. I would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman has the courage to go to the four sixth forms in his constituency in Ashford and say that in each there will be an average of 50 less people going on to university as a result of his proposals.

Eleanor Laing: Yes.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Lady says that she is happy to make such proposals, but she will not be in Ashford. She should go to her constituents and say that in each of her sixth forms less students will go to university. That is a key aspect of the debate that needs to be understood. It is the Labour party that wants to extend opportunity and give people the ability to move forward. It is the Conservativesback to the old Conservativeswho say, We are not going forward.

Stephen Dorrell: The Secretary of State is building a huge amount of his case on the importance of widened access to the university sector. Could he quote the evidence that leads him to the conclusion that the right number in terms of school leavers going on to university is 50 per cent.? What leads him to the conclusion that that is the right number, rather than some of the people in sixth forms in Ashford to whom he has just referred going into further education or other forms of tertiary education that may be more valuable to them and to the economy?

Charles Clarke: There has been a wide range of studies on the matter, as the right hon. Gentleman with his great experience very well knows. The one on which I draw most of all is the view that eight or nine jobs out of every 10 in the future will go to people with this level of skill, ability and talent in the knowledge economy. That has been carried through by a series of serious analyses. The 50 per cent. figure first arose some decades ago while the right hon. Gentleman was in Government, I think from the CBI first, saying that if we wanted to compete in business with other countries, we needed that level of university educationits assessment, not mine. We came to the view that that was where we should go, and I think that it is right. Its effect is right for the economy, for people in the economy and for young people coming through, and the effect of the Conservative Front-Bench proposals will be to cut out that opportunity for literally thousands and thousands of people in the country.

Stephen Dorrell: Is it not closer to the truth to say that it is politically convenient, particularly in view of some of the international comparisons that the right hon. Gentleman quoted, to dub a particular form of tertiary education as a degree and university education rather than addressing more accurately the needs of individuals and society at large?

Charles Clarke: No, that is not right. The fact is that there is substantial academic research about what is a degree and what is quality assured to obtain international comparability, and so on. Of course, arguments can be made, as he says, about whether those academic assertions are right, but the core point, which I need to come back to again and again because it needs to be understood in every household in this country with children, is that the Conservatives want to take away the chances of young people going to university, and that is their explicit policy.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Charles Clarke: No, I will not.

Michael Fabricant: Why not?

Charles Clarke: Shall we do that one-two again? I will make a pledge that later in the debate I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but at my convenience, not his, if he does not mind.
	The key point that needs to be understood is that it is not simply a question of the Conservative policies reducing opportunities in the way that they do, but of them explicitly reducing opportunities for people from the poorest and most disadvantaged backgrounds. The Conservatives have said that they will take away the access proposals for support for poorer students, adding up to over 100 million, dealing with child care grant, travel, books and equipment, school meals, disabled students. They will just strip it all out. They will not simply take away opportunity for all students, but take them away specifically for students who most need the help in order to get into university and have the chance of such an education. That is why, as the hon. Member for Daventry announced in the House last Monday, they will also abolish the Office for Fair Access. They do not want fair access. They do not want people to have the right to go to university.

Tim Boswell: Could the Secretary of State please explain, as he has already told me in answer to questions, that as the Office for Fair Access is about the procedures in determining fair admission, why anything whatever to do with the access of disabled students, for example, or other disadvantaged groups, should have any concern or remit in that office? Is that not an entirely different matter, and has he any evidence whatever that we are making a proposal, for example, as he suggested, to wind up the disabled students allowance?

Charles Clarke: All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman is quite right. They are two different things. The various funding channels that he wants to cut, and which were explicitly referred to by the hon. Member for Ashford, are those funding streams that encourage people to go to universities. The specific parallel approach for getting applications from all backgrounds is the Office for Fair Access, which is the right way forward. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to confirm absolutely that there will be no criticism or modification of the schemes for access by people with disabilities, I shall be delighted to hear it. Perhaps he can give that confirmation in his speech.
	In the same way, the Opposition attack foundation degrees. The release given today in the interview in The Guardian made that clear. The hon. Member for Ashford said that the Tories' proposals on vocational training were due to be unveiled in the next few weeksI am glad about that, as our skills White Paper is about to be issued and we will have another debate about thatsetting out their belief that apprentices and practical courses will attract more private money than degrees. He can express that view, but the truth is that wide sections of those in industry, whether they are engineers, chemists or automotive specialists, want a foundation degree approach. They want universities to work with them to get the sort of skills that are necessary, but the Conservatives' approach is to take those away.

Michael Fabricant: Is the Secretary of State aware that, by socially engineering university intake and setting quotas for the numbers of people who go to university, he is creating serious difficulties for employers? For example, the Engineering and Technology BoardI must declare an interest as an unpaid directoras well as Rolls Royce and many other employers have raised a problem in identifying which universities and courses are good and bad. A bachelor's degree no longer has the status that it once enjoyed, as a direct consequence of his Department's actions.

Charles Clarke: The whole presumption on which that intervention was based is wrong. We are not trying to socially engineerI use his phraseaccess to universities. What we are doing is completely the other way around. We are saying that people from all backgrounds in this country should have the opportunity to have a university education, and we seek to promote that.
	The Conservatives do not, however, simply propose that there should be less students; they also propose that there should be less resources.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Secretary of State for Education and Skills not to realise that the word fewer goes with the plural and that less goes with the singular?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman should keep his hair on[Interruption.] I have no hair to share with anyone; perhaps shared hair is something for the future.
	We also have to remember the state of affairs in respect of the universities themselves. Under the Conservatives, student-staff ratios went from 10:1 to 13:1 to 17:1; funding per student fell by 36 per cent. between 1989 and 1997; and an infrastructure backlog of almost 8 billion built up in universities. The Conservative proposals are equivalent to sacking 13,000 lecturers and taking out a further 740 million or moremoney that the universities need to fund future growth and excellence.

Pete Wishart: Loth as I am to become involved in debating English-only legislation, may I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that there is an impact and consequence for Scottish education funding? If the Government take the route of charging students for funding, there will be a lower increase from central funding, which will have a significant impact on the Scottish allocation of education funding through the Barnett formula. Will he confirm that that is the case? Has he made any assessment of the cost to Scotland?

Charles Clarke: The funding of education in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Executive. None the less, I acknowledge that, as there is a UK system of higher education, whatever we do has very significant implications for universities in Scotland, as well as Wales. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I am discussing with Scottish Executive colleagues and others precisely how we can do these things in the most effective way.

Brian Iddon: Does my right hon. Friend remember that it was a Conservative Government who cut the budget of my university, which trains scientists and engineers, by a massive 42 per cent. in a single blow?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	The Conservatives' proposals would mean not only fewer resources and students, but less independence for universities, as they are saying that they will remove the independent funding stream that universities want in order to develop their operations in an effective way. That is why the Conservative proposals are opposed by almost every university leader in this country; those people know that the proposals are an arrow at the heart of their independence and their academic freedom in deciding how they move forward. It is extraordinary that the Conservatives should have made those proposals. Perhaps that is why so many Conservative Back Benchers and Members of the other place do not support what their Front Benchers are about.
	The fundamental issue is equity. I shall give the House the figures. When we look at the amounts of money per student that we spend at different levels of education, we see some very revealing figures. In nursery education, the annual cost of a three-year-old place is about 1,750; for a four-year-old, the cost is about 3,500. In primary education, the figure is 3,230; in secondary education, 4,060; in first and second-year further education, 4,350; and in higher education, 5,360. That hierarchy of spending has been very well established for many years. It is based on saying that we should spend more money on people who are higher up the system in the educational hierarchy and less on those who are at the bottom.
	That policy is socially divisive in many ways, which is why this Government have been trying to spend more on under-fives and primaries. As we make those spending commitments, we are putting more positive effort into allowing children from all backgrounds to succeed and move forward. The Government have made that commitment and we will continue with it. The very important appointment of my hon. Friend the Minister for Children is a recognition of the priority that we attach to that issue.
	Every Secretary of State, whether from the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or elsewhere, will face resource allocation choices in deciding whether money should go to the youngest or oldest end of the age range. The fact is that the arithmetic that I have just given leads to a conclusion. The difference between what the state spends on a student who leaves school at 16 and does not do anything further in education and on somebody who graduates is almost 25,000. That is what the state puts in. I defend that position, as I think that the state should support it, and the overwhelming majority of support is for teaching costs. However, is it really so inequitable that individuals who have benefited from that education and will be able to earn on that basis later in life should make some contribution towards it?
	The Conservatives propose to increase that differential even more, so the issue is whether a graduate should contribute to that situation. Our proposals say that parents do not have to pay, because the fees are going back afterwards. Students do not have to pay while they are in college. Graduates have to paythis is what our proposals have in common with a graduate taxfrom the extra resource that they have. If the hon. Member for Ashford thinks that it is inequitable that the state should pay the cost per student that is currently paid by the taxpayer and that it is unfair to ask graduates to contribute to the costs, I ask him how much more unfair it is for that money to be contributed by non-graduates for the education of those very same graduates. Is it just or fair for us to say that a non-graduate should pay for the education of such people, but that graduates themselves should not? I do not think that that is fair or that it is the right way for us to proceed.
	I turn now to debta very serious issue to which the hon. Member for Ashford devoted some time. As I have said from the outset, there are genuine concerns about the fear of debt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) pointed out. It is a fair subject of discussion; we have discussed it with the Select Committee and we will continue to take it forward. As Professor Barr argues, the issue is one of payroll deduction, but that does not mean that it is any less frightening. None the less, it is important to put the matter into some sort of perspective. Over a 40-year period, a current graduate will pay about 850,000 in income tax and national insurance contributions. That is a lot of money. They will also spend about 500,000 on food, and they pay those costs in a very direct way. Alternatively, somebody who stopped paying for 20 cigarettes a day would pay off 10,000 of student debt in 11 years with that money. Survey data show that single householders on average earnings spend an average of 36 a week on recreation and culture, which compares with the 8 or 9 a week that we are talking about in relation to the repayment.
	I do not deny that the debt is a serious and frightening thing for some people, but it is important to get it into perspective in terms of lifetime costs and to ask whether such an investment is worthwhile. It is also important to put it in the context of the range of protections that we have placed in the system. The repayments are income-contingent, so nobody pays if they are earning less than 15,000 a year, and that moves up in a direct process. We have put in protections for students from the poorest families, for whom we are waiving the fees at their current level. We are discussing offering bursaries as part of the project for universities that charge higher fees. The hon. Member for Ashford would abolish that. We have established a 1,000 grant on top of the loan to enable students from the poorest families to go to university. There is no up-front fee. We have moved the situation forward. In a pretty substantial contribution, we have said that there is a zero real rate of interest on the debt, which means that, unlike a mortgage or a car loan, it does not grow. Will the hon. Member for Daventry clarify the Conservatives' position on that? The hon. Member for Ashford was reported in The GuardianI do not take it as gospelas saying that they are going to remove the subsidy on the interest on student loans. In other words, the Treasury would no longer

Damian Green: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Charles Clarke: FineI welcome the clarification.

Damian Green: I can happily confirm to the Secretary of State that that part of the report was inaccurate.
	Meanwhile, may I ask him to clarify his own position? He said that the poorest students will not pay the existing part of the fees. Does that mean that they will pay the top-up part of the fees?

Charles Clarke: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have never been misquoted in The Guardian myself, so I do not quite understand his problem, but I am grateful for his clarification. I was not sure what the policy was, and I thank him for setting it straight.
	As for our position on fees, I repeat that it is our policy to waive the fees at their current level of 1,100 for students from the poorest families. That will continue. Through the Office for Fair Access, we are discussing with universities bursaries that would enable the balance between that 1,100 and a higher fee, if it were chargedsay, 3,000to be paid through a bursary regime. I am not in a position to make an announcement about that yet, but it is an important and positive development that meets many of my hon. Friends' concerns.
	We are observing a Tory policy shambles of the most extraordinary kind. Only just over a year ago, the hon. Member for Ashford said on the GMTV programme:
	I don't mind the principle of charging differential fees.
	Why has his position changed? The only explanation comes in remarks by the vice-chancellor of Buckingham university, which is a private university set up by the hon. Gentleman's friend Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. The vice-chancellor asked:
	why are the Tories now sinking into louche popularism?
	That is the truth of it. They came up with a little stunt and thought that they would campaign on it, but they did not think it through or imagine that anybody would analyse it. I welcome the debate, as we want to analyse it. The truth is that the Conservative record is one of never facing up to the challenges that the British university system faces. We are facing up to those challenges. Although they involve difficult choicesI acknowledge that absolutelywe are laying a foundation for universities to expand and develop and to play their role in our national society and economy. The Conservatives are utterly failing to do so.

David Rendel: The motion is something of an anti-climax. We thought that the debate was supposed to be on Conservative proposals for student finance. The provisional title that was supplied to our Whips OfficeA fair deal for students and parentsis the very title that the Conservatives use for their proposals, yet the motion makes no mention at all of Conservative policy. Indeed, it does not even call for the abolition of tuition fees. The National Union of Students is in line with only one Conservative policy. Whatever the Conservatives may claim, the NUS certainly does not agree with the rest of their policies, whereas the policies of the NUS and the Liberal Democrats are remarkably close.
	This is the third occasion on which the Conservatives have ducked an opportunity to deploy their thinking. First, they cancelled an Opposition day debate, then the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) refused to appear before the Select Committee on Education and Skills, and now we have today's motion. What on earth are they trying to hide? Could it be that they are worried that as soon as we get a real chance to take their new policy to pieces, as I hope to, it will be shown up as the unprincipled opportunism that it really is?

Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clarify an aspect of Liberal Democrat policy about which I am a little uncertain? In January, I read in The Guardian that Liberal Democrat policy was to abolish maintenance grants for the first two years of a university course, thus forcing poorer students to live and study at home. Is that still Liberal Democrat policy?

David Rendel: It is not, and it was not. As we have already heard today, it is perhaps unwise to believe everything that one reads in The Guardian.
	Liberal Democrat Members at least have had a consistent and principled record of opposing all fees for tuition ever since they were first proposed, including top-up fees.

David Chaytor: In a speech just two weeks ago, the Liberal Democrats' leader made it clear that under Liberal Democrat proposals an increasing proportion of students would study nearer to their homes. Is not the Liberal Democrats' budgeting based on that assumption?

David Rendel: We certainly believe that in future more people will choose to study closer to their homes as a result of the trend towards part-time studying. We do not intend to force that on anybody: it is happening naturally already.
	Neither the Conservatives' nor the Government's proposals will work, because one cannot have a serious policy of widening participation to include more students from non-traditional backgrounds and charging for tuition, which places serious financial and psychological obstacles in the path of participation. Recent research by Professor Claire Callender of South Bank university could not be clearer. She says that
	one of the most significant findings of this study is that debt aversion deters entry into higher education . . . Debt aversion had the greatest impact on the participation of the very groups the government most wants to attract into higher education.
	Of course, top-up fees, as a result of which debts will soar to 21,000 or more on graduation, will make the situation far worse.
	We will support the Conservative motionone could hardly do otherwise; there is nothing exceptionable in itbut the Government are right on two key points that the Conservatives have got badly wrong, and this is where Liberal Democrats part company fundamentally with the Conservatives. First, the Government are right that we need to increase participation. There is no doubt that that is what the British economy needs and what social justice demands. The Government are right to stress that objective and the Conservatives are wrong to oppose it. Liberal Democrats oppose fees because they are an obstacle to increasing participation. The Tories want to scrap fees at the cost of increasing participation.

Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the missing part of the jigsaw is what is to be done with vocational and technical training? My party will shortly introduce plans on that. He cannot criticise supposed reductions in participation without considering the vocational and technical sector.

David Rendel: All the Tory costings are based on there being no money for such an expansion of further education, so I do not see how his party would manage to increase participation in that way.
	Research by Professor Barr shows that the Conservative proposals would not only end the proposed expansion of 182,000 additional places by 2010 but would lead to a cut of at least 79,000 existing places over five years. The research shows that if the Conservatives were to get their way, participation would fall from its current rate of 43 per cent. to, at the very best, 38 per cent. by 2010. Professor Barr concludes:
	The Tory proposals are also offensive to anyone who cares about fairness.
	Far from increasing participation, the Conservatives would stop a quarter of a million young peoplemainly from the least well-off familiesgoing to university. Meanwhile, they are planning to cut 193 million earmarked to improve the recruitment and retention of poorer students, and they make no mention at all either of grants orto take the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous)of funding for vocational courses, despite saying that they expect many of the students who are denied a higher education place to take up vocational alternatives. Perhaps they have forgotten that a place on a vocational course is often more expensive than a place in higher education. The Conservatives' proposals could, in this area at least, be even more expensive than the Government's.
	We should never forget that the Conservatives substantially cut the value of grants when they were in office. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Ashford pressed the Government to
	keep the maintenance grant in order to increase access to higher education, rather than damage it[Official Report, 19 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 1097.]
	Perhaps he would like to use this opportunity either to commit his party to reintroduce grants or to explain why it no longer supports them.
	The second point is about funding. There is no question but that the universities need more money. The Government are right about that and the Conservatives are wrong. After all, the Conservatives presided over a 40 per cent. real-terms drop in funding per student.
	Neither fees nor top-up fees can solve this funding problem. When the then Secretary of State introduced tuition fees, he said that the entire objective in taking the difficult decisions had been to put higher education on a firm footing for the next two decades. He also said that the new arrangements were introduced precisely to avoid the universities levying additional charges.
	In reality, tuition fees have merely plugged the gap left by a cut in public funding, as was confirmed by the chairman of Universities UK at a meeting this morning. Why should the outcome of top-up fees be any different? Good government implies working out first what slice of the national cake should be spent on each public service, and only then working out how much of that slice can be financed from charges and how much must be met from taxation. Top-up fees will not expand the higher education cake; they will merely change the balance between the public and private ingredients.
	In his reply to the debate on Monday, the Minister claimed that that would not be the case. He said that income from top-up fees
	will be additional money going into universities[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 766.]
	First, he must explain what provisions will be included in legislation to ensure that that happens. I cannot see how any provision could ensure that, but I should be interested to hear whether he has any of idea of the provisions he intends to include.
	Secondly, the Minister must tell us why the Government are prepared to allow the universities, which have a very obvious interest in the matter, to determine how much of the national wealth should be spent on them, instead of retaining that decision in the hands of the Government, to be taken on behalf of all the citizens of the country. What an abrogation of good government that would be if we allowed that situation to be maintained!
	At least the Government accept that there is a funding problem. The Conservatives are promising not more money for our universities, but less. Professor Barr's research identifies a cumulative deficit in the Conservative proposals, amounting to 1.6 billion over the first five years. Even taking the Conservatives' claims at face value, they are talking about merely a standstill position for our universities. In the face of all the evidence, they claim that funding at the status quo level is just fine, and that the universities can simply go into hibernation, unchanged in any way for the foreseeable future.
	The reality is that the Conservative plans do not add up and their costings have been rubbished by Universities UK. In fact, the Conservatives had to withdraw the first version of their press release to announce their new proposals because they discovered, shortly after its launch, that they had completely misunderstood one of the figures that they had taken from a UUK report and used to support their costings.
	Once they had been denied the cloak of credibility that they had hoped the vice-chancellors could provide, the Tories dreamt up an entirely different justification for the size of the saving that they claimed their policy would achieve. Sadly for them, their new calculation has been rubbished by the House of Commons Library, which has difficulty understanding the logic. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have seldom heard the Library be quite so damning about anything as to say that it has difficulty in understanding the logic of the proposal.
	Written parliamentary answers and the Library confirm that the Conservatives cannot possibly cost the Government's expansion plans with accuracy, for the simple reason that the figures are not yet available. We have asked the Government to cost their expansion plans, and we have been told that assessments of the costs for increasing and widening participation beyond 2005-06 will be made as part of the 2004 spending review, work on which will commence shortly.
	Even the 700 million price tag that the Conservatives place on abolishing all fees is open to question. They have hardly based the figure on a rigorous sourcean online interview with the Secretary of State, in which he gave a range of figures, 700 million being the lowest. It is interesting that the Tories should pick up on the lowest figure. As the Library points out:
	There are very few figures in this area until the exact scheme and level of fees by individual institutions are decided.
	The Tory proposal to scrap the Office of Fair Access is not a bad idea; it is one of the few with which we agree. How much does the Tory press release claim this will save? Oh dear, Madam Deputy Speaker; all I can see is a question mark. The Tories have no idea whether the saving will be significant or not; their figures simply do not add up.

Tim Boswell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have not estimated OFFA's running costs, so it is impossible for us to provide an authoritative estimate. Furthermore, the university sector would incur substantial compliance costs in respect of OFFA, and no one has even made a start on calculating them.

David Rendel: The hon. Gentleman has just made the exact point that I was trying to make about his policies. He has come up with a proposal that he has not costed, partly because he cannot cost it. He simply does not know, as the figures have not yet been produced. His proposals cannot be relied on; the figures simply are not there.
	The Conservative's figures do not add up. There are simply too many question marks, some of which are provided by the Conservatives themselves. Their analysis is based on shoddy research, incomplete data and a confused analysis. There is one thing of which we can be sure: we cannot trust the Tories. If we want to know whether the Tories are serious about the issue, it is not good enough to listen to their warm words; we have to look at their record.

Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the debate on Monday, the House learned that his party leader had made a fundamental mistake about the number of students from the bottom two social classes who go to university, and had said something that the Labour and Conservative research departments confirmed was wrong?

David Rendel: I am unable to answer that at present, as the Government and my party leader are still corresponding about the issue. I have not been party to that correspondence, so I cannot answer the question.
	If we want to know whether the Tories are serious, we have to look at their record. What did they do in government?

Alan Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but this point is important to the debate. Is his position the same as that of his party leaderthat the proportion of students from the two lowest economic groups going into higher education has fallen since the Government came to power? Is that still his party's positionyes or no?

David Rendel: If the Minister looks at the UNITE-Mori survey, he will see that the proportion of students who come from the C, D and E groups has fallen from 20 per cent. three years ago to 17 per cent. in the latest figures, which, I believe, come from last November.

Alan Johnson: This is important to the hon. Gentleman and to everyone else in the House because it is about widening participation. His party leader said that the number of students going into higher education from the two lowest groups, D and E, had fallen since 1997. Is that correct or not?

David Rendel: As I have already said, I understand that that is still a matter of some argument. I cannot answer that question, but the Minister has now given me the chance to look up the relevant figures. The graph makes it absolutely clear that the figures for the C2, D and E groups have fallen as a proportion of the total. Those are MORI's figures. I am not sure what figures he is referring to, but those are the figures that I have. They are absolutely plain in the MORI report; if the Minister wishes to check them, I have them here.

David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Rendel: Not again. I am sorry, but I really must make some progress.
	When I was interrupted, I was about to look at the Conservatives' record in government. In 1981, they abolished the repeat grant. In 1984, the minimum grant was halved, and in 1985 it was abolished. In 1986, students lost their entitlement to supplementary benefit or unemployment benefit, and to housing benefit for university halls of residence. In 1989, the equipment allowance was abolished. In 1990, vacation hardship allowances were abolished, student loans were introduced and the entitlement to state benefit was withdrawn. Also in 1990, the grant was frozen at 2,200. In 1994, the grant was cut by 10 per cent. In 1995, it was cut by another 10 per cent., and the mature student allowance was abolished. In 1996, the grant was cut by a further 10 per cent., and student loans were increased by 10 per cent. Finally, in 1997, just before the election, grants and loans were both increased, at lastbut only by 1.2 per cent.
	What have the Conservatives done more recently? They have tabled early-day motion 264 in the name of the hon. Member for Ashford, calling on the Government to stand by their manifesto pledge not to introduce top-up fees. Interestingly, six months on, only 47 out of the 166 Conservative MPs have signed it. Come to think of it, perhaps that is because the early-day motion also demands that
	any future system of university finance must resolve current funding issues,
	yet the Conservatives' proposals do nothing to solve current funding issues. Why has the hon. Member for Ashford produced proposals that do not even meet the minimum requirements of his own early-day motion?
	In July 2002, Conservative members of the Education and Skills Committee voted unanimously in support of top-up fees and tuition fees. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), who I am delighted to see in his place, was the only member of that Committee to oppose fees, and he issued a minority report in order to do so. It will be very interesting to see whether the three Conservatives on that Committee back my hon. Friend if he again supports the abolition of all fees in the Committee's next report, which I understand is due in a few days' time. Meanwhile the hon. Member for Ashford himself is on record as saying:
	I don't mind the principle of differential fees . . . If it's true the Government is going to abolish up-front fees and say that everything should be paid back by the individual student afterwards, that's fine by me.
	Meanwhile, in Scotland, the presence of Liberal Democrats in the Government has ensured the abolition of tuition feesno thanks to the Conservatives. The Scottish Conservative education spokesperson said on 31 October 2002 that the need for more income
	may require the best universities to charge top-up fees. There is no reason why this should not be allowed.

Tim Boswell: I want to make a point that might even be mildly supportive of the Government. If the hon. Gentleman continues to argue that Liberal participation in government in Scotland has led to the abolition of tuition fees, and if the Government in this country are going to abolish immediate tuition fees and collect them after graduation, why does he object to Government policy?

David Rendel: I did not think that I had objected. I have always said that it is better to collect fees after the event, if they are going to be charged, but it has been our policy all along that they should not be charged at all. There should be no tuition fees, either before or after the event. In Scotland, we have stuck by our word and abolished tuition fees, both before and after. No tuition fees are charged at all in Scotland now.

Anne Campbell: I might have got this wrong, but in Scotland do not students who graduate pay 2,000 towards an endowment, which pays for other students to go to university? What is the difference, from a student's point of view, between paying at that point and what the Government are now proposing?

David Rendel: We have had occasion to explain this many times in the past, and I am sorry to have to do it again. Let me see whether I can make it plain, even to those who find it difficult to understand. I might go into a grocer, buy some bread and butter and pay for it. If, when I came out, someone said to me, Ah, I see you've just paid the council tax, I would say, No, I have just paid for the bread and butter. Council tax is paid to the local authority. In the same way, tuition fees have to be paid for tuition. We cannot pay tuition fees to settle our council tax, or to buy bread and butter. We pay tuition fees for tuition, and the places that provide the tuition are the universities, so we pay the tuition fee to the universities. Not one penny of the 2,000 that graduates pay in Scotland goes to the universities.

Damian Green: rose

Andrew Selous: rose

David Rendel: Let me finish. I think that this will finally answer the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). I do not want to take any further interventions on this, because it is so clear and obvious that I cannot believe that hon. Members do not understand it.
	The Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001 states explicitly:
	Scottish Ministers shall, in making budget proposals to the Scottish Parliament, include provision that the income arising from the graduate endowment for the financial year to which the proposals relate be used for the purposes of student support.
	It would be illegal for that money to be used for tuition fees. By law, it has to be used for student support.
	We can welcome one fact at least, which is that, when the time comes, the Conservatives will join the Liberal Democrats in seeking to defeat top-up fees in this House. But if they were ever to be introduced, the Conservative policy would result not in a fairer and more inclusive higher education system but in a system that was less equal, less fair, and even more poorly funded. This is one bandwagon that the Tories are not only seeking to jump on, but doing their best to destroy, since their policy is simply not credible. Perhaps most significantly, their plans are so, well, Conservative. They have no positive vision of what our higher education system should look like in the future, or of the purposes it is there to serve. Instead, they hark back to a past age of elitism in which higher education was the preserve of the few. As ever, it is left to the Liberal Democrats to provide the only real and effective opposition.

Anne Campbell: I should like to begin by welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education to his Front-Bench position, which, I have to say, some of my hon. Friends regard as a poisoned chalice. I know that he will treat it with his customary skill and charm, and I hope that he will make a real impact on higher education policy.
	Conservative policy, which appears to propose paying for middle-class students to attend university by restricting opportunities for students from poorer backgrounds, is something that I find totally abhorrent and morally bankrupt. Many students have welcomed what the Conservatives have proposed, but when they start to understand the implications of that policy, things will start to unravel fairly quickly. Students will realise that the proposals are not about better access or better opportunities, but about restricting access and opportunities, and about cutting numbers, university funds and lecturers' jobs. We are back to the old Tory policiesand the reason that they were so resoundingly defeated in the 1997 general election.
	I welcome a great deal of what this Government are trying to do in higher education. I welcome the extra Government money that is going into higher educationwhich has not been mentioned so farwhich is being funded from general taxation and represents a 30 per cent. increase in cash terms over three years. That is an amazingly large increase that we have not seen the likes of since the 1970s, and it is very welcome. I do hope, however, that some of that money will be used to fund better academic salaries. I say that not because my husband is a Cambridge university professor, but because the sector generally is suffering from low salaries and low morale. I should like to see better salaries in the university sector.
	I also welcome the measures designed to boost university endowments, in so far as they increase student support. But I am concerned that they may contribute to applicants making a choice based on the financial support that they can receive, rather than on the course that would best suit their needs and abilities. We need to look rather carefully at that issue, to which I shall return later in my speech.
	I very much welcome the ending of up-front fees and the raising of the earnings threshold after which fees start to be repaid. It is true that families just above the threshold who still have to pay fees find paying up-front fees difficult. Some potential students may be deterred from entering higher education by the prospect of inflicting such a burden on their families. I should tell my hon. Friend the Minister that, many years ago when I was a student, that certainly would have deterred me from going to university. Raising the repayment threshold will ease considerably the financial burden on new graduates. The prospect of new graduates retaining a greater proportion of their earnings will reduce the deterrent to their entering higher education.
	I also welcome the continuation of the Government's contribution of 1,100 in respect of fees for students from low-income backgrounds, and the reintroduction of a maintenance grant of up to 1,000 for some students. The use of the more inclusive definition of household income in determining whether Government fee contributionsand presumably grantswill be made is also a very positive move. Andneed I say itmeasures to improve support for part-time students are also to be warmly welcomed.
	However, despite those paeans of praise for the Government's position, I should point out that differential fees will have an adverse effect on access. I note that differential fees are not mentioned in the Government amendment, which I hope means that they are beginning to think again as to whether they will remain part of their policy. When students decide which course to apply for, they should choose on the basis of their own abilities and the suitability of the course to their needsand on those factors alone. Choices should not be influenced by the student's pocket or by their parents' finances. Brighter students, particularly from lower income backgrounds, should not be deterred from the best courses because the fees are more expensive. A clever student from a poor background who has the qualifications to attend a Russell group universityperhaps even Cambridge university, which I representwill have to decide whether to go to such a university or to a university that, in essence, will prove 5,700 cheaper because it does not charge the top-up fee. That is too difficult a burden to put on a person of that age. That is not fair

David Chaytor: Is it not the case, however, that approximately 50 per cent. of the students at Cambridge university, for example, have been educated privately during either their secondary school career or their primary school career? Their parents have more or less cheerfully paid between 6,000 and 20,000 a year in school fees for either the previous seven or 11 years. Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that a fee to go to Cambridge university is unaffordable for that group of parents and students?

Anne Campbell: My hon. Friend and I disagree on this subject. Unlike the Conservatives, I am not proposing that tuition fees be abolished altogether, because they do have a role to play. But I also believe that, if we are going to encourage more people from poorer backgrounds to attend universities such as Cambridge and receive a first-class educationI am sure that that is his objective as wellthey must not be put off by the prospect of the top-up fee for which they will be liable. It is that objective that is uppermost in my mind. At the moment, slightly under 50 per cent. of the students who attend Cambridge university are from public school backgrounds, but the university is working very hard to ensure that more state school students and students from poorer backgrounds attend. I want to support it in its endeavours.
	Much has been said today about debt aversion. I have little to add to that, except perhaps to refer to a survey conducted by Universities UK in 2002, which confirmed that, to an extent, poorer students' course and institution choices are already determined by financial considerations. It is not unreasonable to suppose, therefore, that if top-up fees are imposed, Oxbridge's access problems will be exacerbated.
	When we debated this issue on Monday, my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned science, engineering and medicine courses, which are of course more expensive to provide. However, if universities charge more for these courses, such differential fees could have a serious impact on the training of scientists, engineers and doctors. Many such courses last for four or more years, and the additional fee burden of the extra year would be a deterrent to studying these subjects, which are vital to our economic prosperity and quality of life. In addition, universities that are under pressure to improve their finances would be tempted to cut expensive subjects such as science, especially where student numbers are static or falling.
	I should also like to mention the potential impact on women. On average, women have shorter working lives than men because they take time out to have children. Despite equal pay legislation, women graduates still, on average, earn less than men. So women have shorter working lives and lower overall earnings from which to pay off these significant debts. It follows that women are more likely than men to be deterred by higher fees, and that women's access to the best courses would be reduced by differential fees.
	I accept that universities need extra money, but providing some leeway by cutting numbers is not the right answer. If extra money is needed through higher fees, I would preferalthough it would not be popularthat it be raised by increasing fees across the board, rather than by increasing them for certain courses or institutions only, simply to ensure that different fee levels do not affect students' choice of course or institution. The Government's contribution towards paying poorer students' fees could rise in proportion to any increase in fees, to ensure that higher fees across the board do not have a greater impact on the choice to enter higher education in the first place.
	There are also other steps that we could take. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider reintroducing state scholarships, for example, which were so effective when I was a student in helping people from lower income backgrounds to attend university? One problem with the endowment system to which I referred earlier is that students get such endowments only if they attend certain universities. State scholarships, which are based on both merit and need, could be assessed by means test, exam performance and recommendation by the school. That need not mean more exams for students at school, because our testing regime is comprehensive enough to provide a good idea of students' potential over their school years.
	Organisations already set up, such as the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, which supports bright young people through their earlier years when earning potentials are low, could act as a part-public, part-private state scholarship foundation. That is worth considering because students who gained those scholarships would know that they could go to university without fear of getting into debt or suffering hardship while they are studying.
	There are currently many misperceptions about university. One particular misperception, which I have mentioned before in the House and would like to clear up, is about the cost of going to a top university such as Cambridge. My constituency has two universities and, in fact, it is a good deal cheaper to attend Cambridge university than it is to attend the Anglia Polytechnic university. Cambridge university students have the advantage of subsidised accommodation, making their rents cheaper, and they do not have to pay rents all year round as the Anglia polytechnic university students do. Furthermore, Cambridge university has the benefit of a huge number of college bursaries, which means that students from poorer backgrounds, particularly those not paying the tuition fees, are eligible for several bursaries to help them with maintenance throughout their degree study. When people are considering what university to attend, I hope that they will bear in mind that some of our best universities are among our cheapest. I hope that that will help them make their choices accordingly.
	I know that other hon. Members want to speak and I do not want to prolong my contribution. I thoroughly support the Government amendment to the motion and I shall vote for it this evening.

James Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). Without endorsing every aspect of her speech, I warmly endorse the generality of the sentiments that she expressed, particularly her point about the need to encourage clever children from low-income backgrounds to aim high and go for university education. In some meritorious cases, they should aim for the Russell group of universities and Cambridge university, which the hon. Lady represents. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) who intervened on the hon. Lady's speech could not understand the point that she made about clever children from low-income families, because he wanted to make a point about the number of children from private schools going to Cambridge university. He could not see it, but it was a good point that stands on its merits.
	I also agree with hon. Lady about the remuneration of university academics. Even for professors, it is low, in comparison with what others in comparable professions can earn. I suspect that our academics' remuneration is low even in comparison with what is earned in universities in other parts of the world. We should all think carefully about that.
	An article by the former schools inspector, Mr. Chris Woodhead, in his The Sunday Times column, recently caught my eye. He was replying to someone who withheld their name and had written to him:
	My daughter is taking her GCSEs at our local comprehensive and is predicted to do well. Unfortunately, her school has no sixth form but two local schools have offered sixth form places with the subjects she wants. One of these is a top grammar school. Although its record is outstanding I am concerned that my daughter may subsequently be discriminated against by universities that are anxious to comply with the government's desire that they admit more pupils from 'ordinary' schools. Am I being paranoid?

Alan Johnson: Yes.

James Clappison: The Minister says yes, but Chris Woodhead answers that inquiry from Name withheld. The Minister also knows that Chris Woodhead was appointed and retained as schools inspector by the Government. I well remember the Minister's predecessors praying in aid Chris Woodhead's name and praising him from the same Front Bench on which the Minister now sits. Chris Woodhead said:
	Your fears are entirely reasonable. The government has created such a climate of uncertainty that nobody can feel confident about admission to university. That said, if your daughter has been offered a place at a top grammar school, you have no option. You must choose the best teaching and trust in fate and the courage of top universities to resist the political blackmail.
	Those feelings of uncertainty and the quandary that that parent had to face is experienced by parents throughout the country, not least in my own constituency.
	My constituency has several state schools that are outstanding on any criteria. Perhaps first in the firing line, however, are five independent secondary schools with very good academic records. They admit children from various backgrounds because of the scholarships available at those schools. It is fair to say that they are ethnically diverse and they include the only Jewish independent secondary school in the country that offers a distinctive Jewish education.
	Many thousands of children attend those schools in my constituency. As a constituency Member, my first priority has always been the education of children in the state sector. I wish the independent schools well, but they are the choice of the parents concerned who pay the fees for their children to attend them. As I say, my first concern has been for the state schools and I have made representations on their behalffor example, about the unfair local government funding formula, which distributed resources away from Hertfordshire.
	On Wednesday next week, I shall visit a primary school in my constituency, which is concerned about the effects of Government funding policies and may have to reduce the number of teachers. I shall take with me a copy of the Secretary of State's speech today about primary school funding and see what the primary school governors and head teacher have to say about it when I meet them.
	As to the independent sector, one cannot remain silent in the face of Government proposals in respect of the access regulator and other measures that seem likely to result in discrimination against pupils in those schoolsand, let it be said, othershowever hard they work, and however great their academic achievements.

David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Clappison: No, the hon. Gentleman had three bites of the cherry against my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). We have heard enough of the hon. Gentleman in this debate, not least in respect of his unfortunate intervention on the hon. Member for Cambridge.

David Chaytor: rose

James Clappison: I may give way later. When the hon. Gentleman has heard the generality of my remarks, he may intervene again.
	There is a risk of discrimination. Do Ministers intend that? It is an interesting question. Will the Minister's policies result in discrimination? Almost certainly, yes. How significant will the discrimination be? There is every reason for apprehension. It was no accident that the first act of the present Government was to abolish the assisted places scheme. That spoke volumes about the Government's attitude towards independent education. Never mind that the scheme gave choice and opportunity to children from lower-income families. It was an article of faith of leading new Labour figures that the scheme was a subsidy to public schools and that, without it, public schools would begin to crumble. Nobody in their right minds really believed that, but it did not stop Ministers from saying it.
	In fact, the assisted places scheme was a subsidy for the child, not the school, and I am not aware of any public schools collapsing as a result of its withdrawal. I believe that I am right in saying that the number of applications for independent education is going up. That may be a comment on other aspects of the Government's policies on state secondary education. Let it be said that, notwithstanding the abolition of the assisted places scheme, today

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating two issues here and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would return to them.

James Clappison: It will have caught your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Government amendment mentions the access regulator, and more than 100,000 children from low-income backgrounds attend independent schools as a result of the scholarships available at them. Under the proposals for the access regulator, the parents of those children have every reason to be afraid of being at risk of discrimination in the future when the time comes to apply for university. [Hon. Members: No.] Labour Members may say that, and no doubt the Government will try to convey the message that all is well. Indeed, on the first page of the Government's paper, Widening participation in higher education, we are told that
	admissions to universities are a matter for universities themselves and generally they operate in a way that is fair. Admissions should always be on meritirrespective of class, background or school attendedand based on an applicant's achievements and potential.
	On the face of it, that is reassuring, and it is no doubt intended to reassure.

Alan Johnson: That's okay, then.

James Clappison: Well, university admissions are already fair, as it says explicitly in the Government's paper.

Alan Johnson: indicated assent.

James Clappison: Perhaps then the Minister could explain why the Government intend to create the access regulator, and spend the vast amounts of public money that will be needed to do so. In my experience, universities bend over backwards to attract candidates who are well qualified to go to university, especially from lower income social backgrounds. If the system is fair now, why is the access regulator being created? We must look elsewhere for clues, and I will happily give way to the Minister if he wants to comment on that. He is certainly prepared to comment from a sedentary position.
	The detail of how the system will operate may give us some more clues about the effect that it will have in practice, as opposed to the Government's statements. What is the message that the creation of the access regulator will send to universities? Those universities that wish to increase their fees above the current 1,100 level will need to draw up an access agreement. Among other things, the agreement will need to set out
	the milestones and indicators which a university will decide itself and against which it can measure progress towards its own ambitions of widening participation.
	What are those milestones to be? The Minister had enough to say a moment ago, so perhaps he will tell us what the milestones are intended to be. Ministers refuse to speak about that because they do not want to get their hands dirty with setting targets or milestones.
	As the Minister will be aware, his predecessornow the Minister for Children, who was in her place earlier in the debatelet the cat out of the bag on a recent visit to China, of all places, where she must have felt safely out of the way. She made it clear that she wanted university admissions to be determined on class, and she wanted the Government to set a target to that effect. She said:
	I'm actually going to set a target, where we want to get to by 2010.
	Before one could say Laura Spence, she was forced to retract. We heard earlier from the Secretary of State about his reliance on press reportshe said that he had never been misquotedand after the Minister's comments the press reported:
	But after a conversation with Mr Clarke, Mrs Hodge issued a statement saying approaches to widening access would vary from university to university.
	She said:
	That is why an overall target would be inappropriate and we have no plans to introduce one.
	The hon. Lady got into hot water on that. [Interruption.] The Minister is welcome to intervene if he wishes to clarify the position on targets and tell the House what the milestones are. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Bury, North who gave us earlier some indication of the milestones that he would like to see.

David Chaytor: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the research conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council that demonstrated conclusively that for any given A-level points score, graduates from state school backgrounds achieved a higher class of degree than graduates from private school backgrounds? Is not that a justification for the policies that Bristol university and others are now trying to implement to identify the best talent at the point of entry?

James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman's point would be stronger if Bristol university had not recently retreated on that policy. He has given us plenty of evidence of the targets that he wishes to set and the approach that he would wish to take. For my part, I want universities to admit children on merit, without discrimination according to which school they attended, which class they are perceived to belong to or any other facet of their background. The hon. Gentleman obviously disagrees and he is prepared to say so, but Ministers are not. However, they are sending out a clear message to the universities through the so-called Office for Fair Access and the letters that the Secretary of State will provide for guidance. No one should be in any doubt that the risk of discrimination against pupils will grow as universities feel under pressure to observe some sort of milestone or target to reduce the number of admissions of children who come from certain schools. There is a real risk that in the future, children will be discriminated against because of the school that they attended.
	The hon. Member for Bury, North mentioned grades and university standards a moment ago. That sort of thinking carries the real risk that higher and higher grades will be demanded from children from particular types of school. Three A's from one school will be worth less than three C's from another, and many able pupils, who would be well suited to university education, would benefit from it and would contribute to society as a result, will not get an offer. They will not be wanted because their university fears exceeding the number of children admitted from a certain type of school. Universities will feel under pressure from the Government and fear losing funding if it exceeded its targets. That is where the real risk lies.

Mark Hendrick: rose

James Clappison: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will set out the milestones, because the hon. Member for Bury, North would not.

Mark Hendrick: Discrimination is happening now. Students are finding that they did not go to the right school to get into the university that they want to attend. If the access regulator does his or her job properly, that will not happen.

James Clappison: That is right. There is tremendous uncertainty and the categorisation of types of school should not be an issue. Admissions to university should be determined by the quality of the child. Individual application should be determined on merit, and not in any other way. The real problem with attracting people of merit, especially from lower income backgrounds, will arise from the greater and greater levels of indebtedness that they will get into as a result of the Government's policies. Whatever the Secretary of State says, the average debt of 12,000 is a much more substantial amount of indebtedness for someone from a lower income family. The other problem with the Government's policies is the failings in state secondary education, especially in certain places, of which we have seen far too much evidence recently.

Mark Hendrick: The debt will not be payable until after the student has graduated and earns more than 15,000. That debt should be considered an investment, because graduates are likely to earn far more over their working lives than people who do not go to university.

James Clappison: The terms that the hon. Gentleman uses will be understood by pupils from particular backgrounds, who will be used to professional, middle-class salaries and large financial transactions, such as mortgages. Those terms will not be so readily understood by people from lower income families, who will regard 12,000 as a daunting sum to owe. They will not be so easily persuadable. The Government's political interference in university admissions will combine with their financial policies to create serious discrimination with perverse results. Many people from lower income backgrounds will lose out, and others will lose out because they attend particular types of schools and are considered undesirable.

John Horam: Does my hon. Friend agree that teachers do not only have the problem of lower incomes, even though they have had a university education? They also suffer if they happen to live in higher cost areas. The hon. Gentleman who has just intervened represents Preston, but I represent Orpington in Bromley, and the cost of housing for people in arts administration and teaching, for example, is huge. That is an additional stress, just at the time when they are trying to establish themselves in a career.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the same applies to my constituency. The high cost of housing and of living there means that it is difficult to attract people into public-sector jobs. As I said at the outset, the matter will be of concern to the thousands of children who attend independent schools in my constituency, and to the substantial number of children who attend outstanding state schoolsgrammar schools and former grammar schoolsin and around my area. Parents worry that they will be discriminated against because of where they live. They have suffered from that already as a result of the local government funding formula, and there is a risk that certain types of area and the people who will live in them will suffer further discrimination as a result of Government policies.
	The problem is all part and parcel of the Government's muddled attack on the middle classes. The Government discriminate against people who they consider to be middle class.

Alan Johnson: indicated dissent.

James Clappison: The Minister may smile at that, but parents feel that there is a serious risk that their children will suffer discrimination because they live in the south-east and are middle class. At the same time, children from lower-income homes in my constituency will face rising levels of indebtedness as a result of the Government's financial policies. The Government's policies on state secondary education are failing to raise standards where they need to be raised.
	I think that the terms of the debate as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford are entirely right. The Government are getting themselves into a fine old mess over university finance and admissions. There will be perverse and serious consequences for hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country. Ministers will have to face up to that. They may feel that certain people do not have the same right to a university education as others because of the schools that they tend to choose for their children, and the Government's financial policies may diminish the opportunities for other people. However, although the Government may feel that the middle classes do not have the same rights as others when it comes to higher education, everyone has the same right to exercise choice at the ballot box.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. If those who speak can be concise in their remarks, more will be successful.

Mark Hendrick: Our universities do a good job. Higher education is no longer restricted to tiny and wealthy elites. Our top universities are, I believe, among the best in the world. More overseas students are coming to the UK for their education than ever before, and university research drives the hi-tech industries in my area and in the nation as a whole.
	However, we face real challenges. Other countries already send more young people into higher education, boosting their economies. While an increasing number of people from all backgrounds go to university, the proportion coming from lower-income families has not increased sufficiently. Opposition Members argue otherwise, but I believe that the Government's policies will increase that proportion, despite the increase in top-up fees.
	Universities warn that lack of resources is preventing them from employing the best and brightest academics, or funding the cutting-edge research that our economy needs to prosper. College facilities need upgrading, and the size of lecture and tutorial groups is increasing. To that end, the partial financing of education by students is a necessity.
	As I said earlier, people who gain a university degree or further education qualifications have more opportunities, not just to command a higher income but to achieve personal fulfilment in their lives. The strategic review announced in October 2001 aims to widen participation. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said that it would discriminate against middle-class families, but that is not so. Wider participation in higher education means that more people from all social classes will be included in the Government's plans. I welcome the Government's plans to get half of the population under 30 into higher education.
	The review also aims to simplify the education system, especially in the areas of hardship support; to provide more up-front support for students, and especially for those from less well off backgrounds; and to ensure that all students have access to sufficient financial support throughout their years of higher education. It will also tackle the problems of debt and the perceptions of debtan important point because, as I said in an earlier intervention, debt is somewhat akin to crime, in that the fear of debt is far worse than the reality of the debt that students will face after they have graduated and entered full-time employment. The constant and deliberate emphasis on the word debt to describe what is really an investment in the future deters people from entering higher education. If the financial commitment were sold as an investment, it would be far more attractive, and the numbers entering higher education would increase rather than decrease.
	In the decades since the 1960s, university education has changed. What was a preserve of the elite now supplies the mass market that the Government are trying to create through the rapid expansion of higher education. That expansion has occurred simultaneously with funding falling by 36 per cent. between 1989 and 1997.
	The Government have taken a sensible look at the structure of the entire higher education system, and are addressing the problems that exist. Their aim is to deal with student finance in the longer term, and to open up access.
	Demand for graduates is strong. A House of Commons Library paper on the future of higher education found that, by the end of the decade, 80 per cent. of new jobs will require higher education qualifications. We can achieve that only by widening access. Although 50 per cent. is the target, nobody is saying that we should stop there and, even if we do not reach that proportion, there will still have been a huge increase in the numbers of people going into higher education. Given that 80 per cent. of new jobs will require higher education, the target makes perfect sense. It would be wrong to remove it, and it is dishonest of the Liberal Democrats to claim that higher education need not cost more.
	There needs to be fair access to higher education, which is a gateway to opportunity and fulfilment. The social class gap among those entering higher education has widened. Young people from professional backgrounds are more than five times more likely to enter higher education than those from unskilled backgrounds. The White Paper describes the current position as socially unjust and says that it
	cannot be tolerated in a civilised society.
	I am pleased that the Government are taking steps to address the financing of student education while tackling the wider issue of ensuring that we have an education system which will meet the needs of Britain in the 21st century. It is not a matter of saying that students should not pay fees, or that targets should not be set. The task is to educate people to meet the needs of the 21st century.
	For the reasons that I have set out, it is regrettable that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats want to open up the higher education system to make it more socially just and dynamic enough to compete in the modern world. The background of the Conservative party is one of cutting investment in public services. Since 1997, the Opposition have supported cutting spending levels to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product and have opposed every one of the Government's Budgets, pre-Budget reports and spending reviews, and they have refused to match Labour's spending plans.
	We all know that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) revealed plans to cut public spending by 20 per cent., and the Leader of the Opposition has talked about across-the-board cuts that would include cuts in the numbers of teachers and support staff. [Interruption.] Opposition Members say that that is not true, but on 31 December 2002 The Daily Telegraph stated:
	The Conservative education policy would be a poor deal for young people, a raw deal for our universities and a catastrophe for Britain in the global economy.
	This is a real ideological issue. The choice for higher education is between the Government, who believe in greater equality of opportunity, choice and an education system that will boost the economy, and the Opposition, whose proposals would lead to cuts in funding and to an elite-driven higher education system.
	That has not always been the case, however. On 19 January, on the GMTV programme, the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said:
	I don't mind the principle of charging differential fees. What I think is important is the level of fees. If it's true that the Government is going back to abolish up front fees, and say that everything that should be paid by the individual student afterwards, that's fine by me.
	The Tories' sums do not add up; they would starve universities of resources, cap opportunities for students and force universities to close. They underestimate the cost of scrapping fees, especially as they are committed to cutting spending by up to 20 per cent., as I said earlier.
	The Tories are planning to revert to the time when university places were capped and the well-off benefited disproportionately. They openly admit that they want to cut the number of people in higher education; the hon. Member for Ashford said that earlier in the debate. Ninety thousand university places would go immediately, which is equivalent to 13,000 lecturers losing their jobs. A further 150,000 places would go, as universities would not have the additional income from the variable fee funding system.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having got as far as page four of the Labour party brief. Can he explain why, with the current ratio of university lecturers to students, there is a correlation between 90,000 students and 13,000 lecturers? Can he give a notional estimate of the top-up fee that would be required to generate an additional 150,000 university placesthe number that he claims we are about to abolish?

Mark Hendrick: The calculations were made by my researcher and I genuinely believe that I gave an accurate ratio.
	The Tories have always believed in an education system that benefits the elite. That was their position in 1997 and it is their position now. They believe that Britain can flourish as a low skill, low investment economy. That is the view of a party that believed that unemployment was a price worth paying when they held power.
	Expanding higher education widens access to university education and increases opportunity. It also helps UK plc to stay competitive in today's global market.
	Approximately half the higher education estate was built, to relatively low and inflexible specifications, in the 1960s and early 1970s. Much of it is nearing the end of its design life, and new requirements arise from scientific and technological advance, as well as from recent growth in research. Recent reports show an infrastructure backlog of about 8 billion, including a teaching infrastructure backlog of 4.6 billion, plus a need to double spending on maintenance.
	The abolition of the current up-front fee is important, so that graduates themselves are responsible for paying for the cost of their course. It is not, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere said, an anti-middle-class policy. The parents of those children would not be paying the fees; after graduating, the students would pay the fees. That is an important step in achieving social justice in educational opportunity.
	The Government have set out a sensible and practical policy to build an education system to meet the needs of students, employers and universities in the modern world. The policy is fair, and offers opportunity, social justice and choice for student financing in cost and repayment. It is a solution that will allow more people to realise the benefits of education and to fulfil their dreams, and will allow more students from lower income groups, as well as those from middle income groups, to attend university.

Paul Goodman: It would be remiss of me to begin without welcoming the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education to his new post. He will have noted that, so far, only 50 per cent. of the speeches from his Back Benchers have offered full support for his policies, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) had serious reservations about differential fees. She was wise to welcome him with the words that his job was a poisoned chalice, although I do not want to blemish my welcome by reminding him that that may indeed be so.
	The Minister will have noticed that although the entire speech of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), rubbished my party's policy, the hon. Gentleman announced that he would vote with usthat is the Liberal Democrats!
	I shall give some figures that are at the heart of the debate, as it has mostly centred on student numbers. I do not think that anyone has yet pointed out that, in 1960, one in 20 school leavers entered higher education. Nowadays, partly as a result of what the Conservatives did in government, when we expanded accesscontrary to some of the claims from Labour Membersone in three school leavers goes into higher education. By 2010, the Government intend that one in two 18 to 30-year-olds should do so.
	The Government intend the numbers in higher education to grow and grow. It is worth looking again at the reasons. The answer given by recent Governments in general and by the Labour Government in particular seems explicitly utilitarian: more graduates mean more growth. The Secretary of State expressly confirmed that in his speech. So that the rationale for the right hon. Gentleman's thinking is in no doubt, I shall quote from another of his recent speeches. He said:
	I don't mind there being some medievalists around for ornamental purposes, but there is no reason for the state to pay for them . . . I argue that what I described as the medieval concept of a community of scholars seeking truth is not in itself a justification for the state to put money into that. We might do it at, say a level of a hundredth of what we do now and have one university of medieval seekers after truth . . . as an adornment to our society.
	I shall not argueat least, not for the momentthat there is no convincing proof of the assertion that more and more graduates will deliver more and more economic growth, although I believe that there is no such evidence. Nor shall I argue that such a utilitarian view of education is both blinkered and philistine, although it is. Instead, I shall argue that that view has led directly to the alarm with which Labour Back Benchers greeted the Government's higher education policythe Minister will recall that about 100 Labour Members failed to support the Government on Monday nightand the lack of support that the policy has received almost everywhere else.
	There is a simple truth about the expansion of higher education, as we discovered when we were in government and the Government are discovering now. Sooner or later, the irresistible force, namely, more and more students entering higher education, meets the immovable object, namely, the reluctance of the Treasury to fund tuition fees and grants for all those students. That is exactly what happened when we were in government and it is happening to the Government now.
	Let us consider student numbers. Since 1989, numbers have risen by 90 per cent., but funding per student has fallen by 37 per cent., because there is not enough taxpayers' money to go round. It is that shortage of money, not the ill will of Ministerswho are, by and large, well-meaning peoplethat has caused the Government twice to tear up their election promises.
	In 1997, they promised no tuition fees, but two and a half months later, under financial pressure, they revealed plans to introduce tuition fees. In 2001, they promised no top-up fees, but this year, again under pressure from the Treasury, they had to reveal plans to introduce top-up fees. No wonder, according to a NatWest surveyonly one of a number of such surveysthat students who graduated last year have an average debt of 10,000, a rise of 67 per cent. on 2001. No wonder, according to the Government's own figures, that nearly a fifth of students drop out. That is lower than the rate for many of our competitors, but much higher than it was. No wonder, with such a shortage of money in the system, that there is a 5.3 billion backlog in capital investment, according to Universities UK, and that, according to a NATFHE survey, UK academics ranked 10th for academic pay out of 15 countries.
	What is building up is a composite picture of debt-ridden students, anxious parents, underpaid teachers and lecturers, and vice-chancellors and principals who are viewed by Ministers, according to their own words, not as scholars who have charge of independent communities of scholars, but as wheels and cogs in the machine of economic production. That is what the Government's policy is driving them towards, and none of those people is getting a fair deal, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) will say in summing up the debate.
	The Government will compound the existing problems of debt and drop-out, however, by trying to enrol an extra 15,000 students a year and employ an extra 1,000 teachers a yearthe equivalent of another 20 universitiescosting 25 million a year. According to the Government's own logic, there is no reason whatsoever why their target should be as low as 50 per cent. If it is true that more graduates produce more growth, why not raise the admissions target to 60 or 70 per cent., or even 100 per cent.?
	When I made that point to the Secretary of State during his speech, he approvingly quoted countriesalthough I think that only one of them was in the European Unionthat had even higher participation rates, and the Government's own logic is now forcing them to travel down that road. We, too, went down that road when we expanded student numbers when we were in government. Now, the Government appear to have left themselves no option but to follow that route, which will lead to more debt and to more potential students being deterred from entering higher educationmany are precisely the sort of students whom the Government want to encourage.
	On reflection, the Minister will be aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends have carried out a stroke of Disraelian audacity by producing a widely welcomed policy that seeks to abolish not only top-up fees, but tuition fees. That leaves him and the Labour party politically isolated, with 100 Labour Back Benchers having failed to support him in the Lobby on Monday. We will watch with interest to see how many of them support him today, but my hon. Friends and I know from talking to parents, students and potential students in our constituencies, many of whom may not yet have voted or many of whom did not vote Conservative at the last election, that our policy is certainly a vote winner that has left the Government in great difficulty.

John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) in the debate. He based his assertion that Labour Back Benchers were split down the middle on this issue on a sample of two Back Benchers' speeches. That was a small sample, but I believe that he was not far wrong. After my speech, the sample will be only a little bit larger, but it will show that 66 per cent. of us have some reservations about Government policy.
	I was emboldened to speak in the debate by three things. First, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said on Monday that he was particularly interested in hearing from Labour Back Benchers during this debate, and who could refuse such an invitation? Secondly, I am the author of early-day motion 799one of the early-day motions on the subjectand it starts:
	That this House supports the National Union of Students' campaign against student top-up fees.
	It makes no mention of fees in general. Thirdly, I feel this afternoon that I am at the apex of my political career in the House. Yesterday, I was elected as chairman of the all-party parliamentary beer club, and I do not think that it will get better than that, particularly after what I say today.
	I want to talk about the political context of top-up fees, which is easily forgotten. I then want to answer the question, which has been asked in interventions on Monday and today: why should students who go to top universities and will subsequently earn large amounts of money in future not pay more than students who go to other universitiesbog standard universities, as some people might say?
	First, on the political context, the proposals arise from the review that the Prime Minister set up after the last election, but very few of us thought that we would end up with top-up fees. It was reported that he had told activists that student fees produced the greatest number of voter complaints during the election. He said:
	It is an issue that came up a lot in the election campaign and we've got to make sure that we have got the right way forward for the future.
	Well, he was not wrong; it certainly did come up a lot during the election campaign.
	Hon. Members will remember the Deputy Prime Minister's unfortunate incident with the egg. On a much smaller scale, I was involved in a copycat incident at York university two days afterwards, when a student cracked an egg over my head. That happened two days after some flour had been thrown over me, and the local paper helpfully said that all I needed was some milk and I would be a right Yorkshire pudding!
	I was slightly heartened that, the following day, I was at home when an election leaflet from my principal opponenta Conservativecame through the door, and there was a picture of him shaking hands with someone who was mildly familiar. I then realised that my Conservative opponent was shaking hands with my Conservative assailant under the headline, Conservatives tough on crime and disorder. We all have to put up with these things during political life.
	It is interesting that we in the Labour party have changed and become in favour of top-up fees. I take as my text what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in the House on 23 March 2000:
	Anything that discourages open access to all universities and their departments in this country is, in my view, wrong. Those who argue for substantial differentiation in fees have to answer where the resources would come from to pay for those on low incomes to enter university departments, given that the top-up fee that they were levying would have to pay for that and for any improvement in quality. They would also have to answer how it would be possible for any Minister to argue with the Treasury for additional resources if those resources were going to be obtained by the universities levying fees on students rather than sharing the costs, as we are at present, with the taxpayer.[Official Report, 23 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 1106.]
	That point has been made by Liberal Democrat Members. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills said that he was generally anti top-up fees when he came to office. What has persuaded those men of great intellect and the Labour party, or the Prime Minister, to change their minds?
	If we read the papers, which is all we Labour Back Benchers can do to see how such policies are produced, we learn that two great intellects are behind the proposals on top-up fees. First, the late Roy Jenkins apparently had a meeting with the Prime Minister and argued very strongly for top-up fees. Secondly his biographer, Andrew Adonis, who also works for the Prime Minister, apparently thinks that it is a very good idea as well. Andrew Adonis is obviously a man of far greater intellect than I am, but the one thing that I have and he does not is the ability to vote on top-up fees in the House.
	I gently tell those on the Front Bench that this will be the first domestic policy issue since 1997 where not only have both major Opposition parties lined up against it but so have a very substantial proportion50 per cent., or perhaps a bit moreof Labour Back Benchers, and there is the House of Lords as well. Politics is ultimately a game of numbers, and I really do not see how the current proposals can possibly get through the House.
	I come now to the policy issues that underlie the debate. Why should not students pay top-up fees? Well, the question itself reveals the philosophy behind the proposals. We will basically have a market-based education system. We will have elite universities, and the theory goes that people should pay to go to them and that they will be where all the research takes place. We will then have teaching factories, where those who have lower aspirations will go.
	In A-level economics, we learn that, for a market to work, people must have perfect information. People will not have the information to decide whether to pay the top-up fees. How can 18-year-olds from working-class estates in Selby possibly decide whether to take a degree at Cambridge, where they will have to pay? The fee will not be 3,000 ultimately, because the cap will go, and they will have to pay many more thousands of pounds. How can they possibly decide whether that will benefit them most? If they are risk averseall the indications are that working-class children are risk averse for a whole variety of reasonsthey will go to the nearest university. Their choices will be restricted.
	We have heard that there will be bursary schemes and that further announcements will be made about them. At the moment, the proposals are that each university should draw up its own bursary scheme, although it will have to meet some as yet undefined standard. Let us imagine being an 18-year-old from a working-class estate trying to work out what bursary scheme is on offer from which university. That proposal will act as a massive deterrent. For those just above the threshold who will not get bursariesthose from hard-working working-class and lower-middle-class familieshow on earth will their choices not be distorted by top-up fees? Of course they will be distorted.

Eric Joyce: Is my hon. Friend therefore saying that, in essence, children of middle-class families will have the wherewithal to make sensible and intelligent judgments based on the return that they will get from universities, but working-class kids will lack that wherewithal?

John Grogan: No. Let me give an example. Last summer, I advised a student from a working-class estate in Selby who was desperately trying to get to university. He could not open a bank account because the bank would not accept him unless he had a passport or a driving licence. It is so hard to get to universities from some backgrounds if information is not available and if family pressures are not necessarily in favour of going to university. In our party, we should take great pride in the fact that our ambition is to get far more children from working-class backgrounds into university. So far, we have failed. The best that we have done is to maintain the proportion, and the best that these proposals will do is maintain the proportion. That represents a poverty of ambition.

Mark Hendrick: Surely, making out, as the Opposition have done, that this debt will be a millstone round the neck of young people after they have finished their studies is not the way to encourage them to go into higher education. Is it not the case that if we say that higher education is an investment in their future, they will be far more likely to go into higher education and to get those benefits? We are focusing all the time on the costs and not on the benefits.

John Grogan: The costs are real, and they are very real for people who are 18 and who do not have a tradition of taking out great debts in their family. That will obviously have an effect on their choices. We only need to speak to working-class students, and to students who will be just above the threshold, to realise that it will affect their choices.

Meg Munn: Surely the point of the proposed changes is precisely that students are not being asked to pay anything upfront. We are not asking poor students to pay; we are asking better-off graduates to pay. My hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education said the other day that a graduate earning 18,000 would pay back 5.20 a week. Surely that is a price worth paying for education.

John Grogan: In many ways the model to consider in relation to the proposals is the elite group of universities in the United States. We need only look at Harvard to see what we would get if we introduced differentiated fees. A large number of people whose families were well-off, irrespective of whether they went to public schools or state schools, would go to those elite universities anyway, a small proportion of students on bursaries would also go, as the universities would feel bound to provide them with placesperhaps, as is the case at Harvard, they would wait on the tables of the richer students in return for their bursariesand a lot of people in the middle would be deterred from going to those elite universities because of the extra expense involved. Their choices would be determined not by ability but by affordability.
	One or two more Members want to speak, so I shall conclude in a moment. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, for whom I have a great deal of timewe travel regularly together on the train to our constituencies, although perhaps he will talk to me less than he did previouslyspoke warmly about Dearing on Monday and about what a great idea that review was. I remember that the Prime Minister made a speech on the anniversary of Jim Callaghan's lecture on education at Ruskin college in which he talked about trying to get a consensus on higher education policy. We need a consensus: our original ambition was based on Dearing; now we are to make another big change in student funding in 2005, which will have all sorts of distorting effects in terms of gap years and so on. One day, I am afraid, there will be a non-Labour Government.

Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when there is no consensusclearly, not even on the Labour Back Benchesthe future of higher education is too important to be treated as a political football? We need to step back and have a Dearing II-type review.

John Grogan: Absolutely. If we are serious in the House about improving access and improving our higher education system, we must get a system that lasts a very long time. For me, that would mean stepping back from the current proposals. If the White Paper had proposed a number of options, perhaps supported by different members of the Cabineta graduate tax, for example, and an increase in the general fees level, as has been suggested todayit would have made it much easier to forge a consensus. I urge Ministers, even at this stage, to step back and to try to get that sort of consensus on the future of higher education.

Andrew Selous: I am proud to belong to a party which, when in office, produced an increase in the numbers in higher education from one in eight of those eligible to one in three. That was a terrific expansion, and it was right that we did that. It is worth putting on the record that when Labour was running for election in 1997 it pledged not to introduce tuition fees and then did so, and in 2001 pledged not to introduce top-up fees and again did so. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not agree with this policy, and the majority of the speeches from the Labour Back Benches this afternoon have not been in agreement with it.
	As we heard on Monday, the new Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, who I also welcome to his post, was asked by his predecessor to think seriously about this policy. I want to focus on the disincentive effect that I believe that this debtthat is what we should call itwill have on those thinking about going into higher education. We already know that students are facingpurely for maintenance and what they must pay at the momentan average debt of around 12,000. That is a significant sum of money, which students must cope with by working hard at part-time jobs while they study and by trying to pay it back afterwards. If that average level of debt is to increase from 12,000 to 27,000, as we have heard this afternoon, that alone will be enough to put off many able people from going to university in the first place.
	I have just presented a petition to the House, on behalf of my constituents, under the heading, Debt on our doorstep, which looks at the issue of debt in our society. We have rightly campaigned in this House about third world debt, about which we will be talking later this afternoon. Individual personal debt in the UK, however, is a serious problem. I am extremely concerned that the Government proposals will add to it, and will also have the effect of turning away from university many of those who could and should have taken that route.
	Young people today will face significant mortgage costs and housing costs. In my constituency and many others, to get on the housing ladder young people face huge costs to meet from their monthly pay to service their mortgage. If a further deduction is to be made from their pay just because they have been to university, they will think that that is a poor choice, and it will be a strong disincentive to take that route.
	The last part of the equation in terms of finances for people to consider is the pension situation. The House is also urging young people to think about pensions and to save sensibly for them. Young people will have to pay their mortgage costs and university costs and add their pension costs to that. Such a situation is not sustainable and we, as responsible parliamentarians, cannot urge people to take on the combination of those three strands of debt at such a young age. I urge all hon. Members to think seriously about that.
	I ask the Minister not to use Orwellian double-speak by saying that students do not pay but graduates do. They are one and the same person; we are merely talking about deferring an expense. It is not so long since the Government outlawed advertisements that talked about taking the waiting out of wanting, so I am worried when Ministers talk in such terms. Would we say that shoppers do not pay for goods but that consumers do? Such language does not add to the debate.
	I am also worried that several Labour Back Benchers described the sum as an investment rather than a debt. We all believe in the value of education to help people to fulfil their potential, but let us not kid ourselves that an owed liability paid for by monthly deduction from a pay slip is not a debt. We should not use any other word.

Eric Joyce: The difference between Labour Members and Conservative Members could be that we think that education is an investment unlike a car on which a person might spend a similar amount, for example. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a fundamental difference between consumption and investment, which is essentially why his argument falls down?

Andrew Selous: We all agree that education is an investment and that it is worth going through education to better oneself. However, we are discussing how education should be funded and I argue that imposing a specific tax on learning only on people who had been through university or higher education would create a disincentive. We argue that it would be better to use central funding.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Selous: I shall, but I am conscious that one or two hon. Members still wish to speak.

Mark Hendrick: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the situation is okay for those who have money and can afford the investment, but that those who do not have the money and would like to pay back the investment afterwards should not be able to do so?

Andrew Selous: I am arguing precisely the opposite point. I argue that those with the lowest income will be most put off by the prospect of accumulating 27,000 of debta substantial amountin addition to that accumulated by students at the moment.
	There are many jobs for which a degree is not essential but that are taken by people who we would all say had an excellent opportunity to develop at university. I worked in the London insurance market before I came to the House. It is a professional market that contributes greatly to this country's economy, and many who work there have professional qualifications but not necessarily university qualifications. There is no particular advantage for them to be a university graduate, so I think that people who want to enter such a profession would be put off going to university if they realised that it would result in them being poorer each month.
	I am deeply concerned about the access regulator and its potential effects. I am especially worried that people who were the first in their family to attend university would disadvantage their own children by doing so and that people from certain schools could be disadvantaged. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education was absolutely right when he said on Monday that the way to get more people to university is to bring them up to the A-level standard in the first place because we know that nine out of 10 people from more disadvantaged backgrounds who get two A-levels go on to university. We should go down that route.
	We have not touched significantly on an important issue that has been the Cinderella of our educational provision: vocational and technical training. I am proud to represent a constituency next to Luton university, which has paid me the great honour of asking me to sit on its court. Dunstable college, which is a first-rate further education college, is in my constituency, as is the Learning Warehouse, which is an innovative new learning venture in Leighton Buzzard. It is a collaboration among several FE colleges to offer education for people from the age of 16 to the grave. I am convinced that a large number of my constituents will pick the FE and vocational routeto their benefitrather than taking the university route. The university route will be appropriate for some people, but not for sufficient people to meet the 50 per cent. target. The situation in different countries has been bandied about today and I shall mention Switzerland. Very few people there go to university but the country has outstanding technical and vocational education, which is well thought of and desirable for Swiss youngsters.
	The Select Committee on Work and Pensions examined challenges facing the UK labour market this morning. I shall quote two brief facts taken from a document outlining the way in which the European Union views the UK labour market. First, it states that the UK suffers from
	Poor basic skills amongst a significant proportion of the workforce,
	and, secondly, that there is
	Low educational attainment levels and participation rates in lifelong learning.
	That is right, but those two problems are best dealt with by taking the vocational and technical route, not by purely taking the university route.

Stephen McCabe: I share the hon. Gentleman's views about the value of national vocational qualifications, but how does he think students pay for them? Does he think that the money comes out of thin air? Is he aware that they pay for it themselves per unit?

Andrew Selous: I am aware that students pay, but the hon. Gentleman will probably agree that most students at FE colleges tend to be more locally based and do not have the extra costs of those students who go away to university.

David Chaytor: I know that time is short and that I have had more than my fair share of interventions, but I want to refer to something that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said. He accused me of attempting to mislead the House in a question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I note that he is not in the Chamber, so I am reluctant to comment on that, but I must set it on the record that it is my clear understanding that a further invitation was issued to the hon. Gentleman to appear before the Education and Skills Committee to explain his party's policy, which he chose to decline. If I am incorrect, I am sure he will take the opportunity to correct me later.
	Given that my right hon. Friend comprehensively demolished the Conservative party's policy on higher education, which has emerged so interestingly in recent weeks, I do not intend to go over it, although there is much that I should like to say. Instead, I shall focus on a small number of points.
	We adopted the 50 per cent. targetin my view, quite rightly. The Conservatives have said that that is far too high and that they would cut it, but they have not told us exactly what the consequences of that would be. We know that they would be severe because they would reduce opportunity, and the reduced number of places would largely be borne by working-class young people. That is indisputable.
	The Liberal Democrats are also worried about the 50 per cent. target. They do not want an arbitrary target, but accept that it could be higher than 50 per cent. It is inevitable that the participation rate will increase beyond 50 per cent. as we move towards 2010. The rate in 2003 of 18 to 30-year-olds attending university or going into higher education is 43 per cent. For each of the past seven years, the rate of participation has increased by 1 per cent. a year. So it is reasonable to assume that for each of the next seven years it will also increase by 1 per cent. a year, based on previous projections. That does not take into account the significantalmost dramaticimprovements that are occurring in key stage 2 scores at the end of primary school, in GCSE scores at 16 and in A-level results at 18.
	It is almost inevitable that the natural progression, and the result of the Government's investment in primary and secondary schools over the past few years, will lead to far greater demand for higher education as we move to 2010 and beyond. That is important because it demonstrates the pressure on higher education budgets and the urgent need for Governments to find a different way of funding it.
	On debt, the point is that there is no such thing as a free university education. The question is not whether there should, or should not, be debt, but how the debt should be distributed. The Liberal Democrats say that the debt should be paid for entirely by those earning more than 100,000 a year. The principle that they apply is that graduates should pay more through the tax system. The great flaw in their argument is that the majority of graduates will not pay more through the tax system because they do not earn more than 100,000 a year. The Tories are honest about their policy. As my right hon. Friend made clear, we are back to class politics with a vengeance. They want the burden of payment for higher education to be switched entirely on to non-graduates. That is unfair. It is turning the clock back.
	The key to the problem is to strike a balance.
	The Dearing report establishes the key principle that responsibility for payment should be shared by all those who benefit from higher education, including the state, the community as a whole, the individual and employers. We have not heard very much about employers' contribution to the cost of higher education, and such a discussion may be for another time. However, although we can argue about the details, rates and thresholds, what the Government are doing is absolutely right if we are to get a better balance for all the beneficiaries of higher education.

Paul Farrelly: rose

David Chaytor: I am afraid that I cannot give way because time is pressing[Interruption.] What the Government are doing is right, and I am delighted to ensure that 50 per cent. of this afternoon's contributions from Labour Members come with reservations about their policy and 50 per cent. are in favour.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must announce the result of the deferred Division on the Question on sexual orientation discrimination. The Ayes were 267, the Noes were 54, so the Ayes have it.
	[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates].

Tuition Fees

Question again proposed.

Tim Boswell: This has been an interesting debate, which has largely spoken for itself. It was introduced with panache by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who deployed our arguments and thinking in painstaking detail. The Secretary of State then responded, but he may have been more rattled by The Guardian poll on education than we thought. Instead of going back into his shell, although he is not known for that, he delivered a speech that can only be described as doing handstands on the edge of the precipice.
	The Conservative motion was then supported, I think, by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who is going to vote with us. Most of his arguments, however, were a rather dry exposition of his reservations and to some extent a caricature of what we want to do. An interesting aspect of our debate, which needs to be seen in the context of our previous debate on Monday, is the argument that was not made. It was referred to, but it was not made explicit by the Government in their amendments on either occasion. There is no reference at all in the Government amendments to top-up fees, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) perceptively pointed out, which are the policy which may not be spoken of. It would upset Labour Back Benchers, so it is better to keep it private for as long as possible.
	The only thing that the Government can salvage from this week's events is the hope that perhaps 100 Labour Back Benchers will have taken an exceptionally early bath and will not be available to oppose them this afternoon. However, we all know about the strength of feeling on the issue, which was encapsulated the other day in the vitriolic intervention of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) and today in the contribution of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly). I would only point outand I am sure that Government Whips are well aware of thisthat there are at least 86 Labour Members who sit in silent dissent. Legislation is forthcoming, if the Government get round to it, but it will be difficult to get it through the House. As an aside, two education Ministers are former presidents of the National Union of Students. One is the Secretary of State, the other the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg). They supported NUS policy, but I wonder when they saw the light and realised that it was all very sensible after all. It must have been after the coming and, indeed, going of the Conservative Government. Matters are therefore interestingly poised, albeit at an intermediate stage.
	To pick up on other contributions, it was interesting that Labour Back Benchers, as I anticipated, expressed a number of reservations about Government policy. The hon. Member for Cambridge believed that differential fees would have an adverse effect on access and, in a charming speech, the president of the beer clubthe hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who deserves further prefermentexpressed passionate concern about the misdirection of Government policy.
	In particular, his contribution was valuable for mentioning the situation for people who are not affluent by any conceivable test and whose family income is just above the threshold. They are caught by the full weight of debt. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about poverty of ambition, and the danger of demoralising people who might want to make a wise choice and might well be fitted for higher education.
	We heard a contribution in support of Government policy from the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). It was difficult to find out where he thought we should go, except possibly towards an indeterminate target, regardless of cost. I am not sure his Secretary of State would agree. We have just had a contribution from the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who interests himself in these matters and sought to justify the target.
	On our Benches, we had particularly interesting contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who was rightly concerned about intervention in the independent sector, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), who produced a trenchant criticism of utilitarianism and an account of the stresses that higher education Ministers inevitably endure, which I can say from my own experience was entirely authentic, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who made a positive and thoughtful comment and brought the lifetime implications of debtfor example, for pensions fundinginto the discussion.
	One or two other interesting points emerged. When there was a discussion about the student drop-out rate, it occurred to me that if we could cut that, the whole of the mythical Labour case for the alleged withdrawal of student places would fall, because the increase in drop-out covers the wasted places and any possible run-back in the size of the sector.
	There was the usual confusion between participation and access. If the Secretary of State spent a moment looking at the figures for Northern Ireland, where there is a primarily selective secondary education system, he would see that participation is more effective in that country. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman tries to tempt me to go wider than perhaps I should have done. We will discuss that in another context. He needs to reflect carefully, and we shall reflect on what he said about the amount of support that will be available to parents or students who have to pay top-up fees. In the short time available, we wanted to hear from Government Back Benchers.
	Again, I assert the principles underlying our approach. First, of course we accept that there is a continuing role for public finance in higher education, because there is a national interest in higher education. There are benefits to students. We do not believe that they are automatically of the order of 400,000, as Ministers said rather glibly. If there are such benefits, which will not be available for every student, the right way to capture them is through income tax, which is a progressive system. It follows that if we are guardians of public money, it must be used to best effect and not wasted on fruitless courses or excess drop-out.
	Secondly, we should respect the autonomy of institutions. Too little has been said about that. The Secretary of State says that we are taking it away, but any vice-chancellor who derived further resources from what was on offer under the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, now the Home Secretary, as a new deal for higher education has much to think about. Any such additional funds have been bought at a high cost in intervention. That will be much worse when OFFA comes along as a political sop to the Provisional wing of the Labour Government to lend plausibility in respect of access. For the avoidance of doubt, I can say that there will be no diminution of access under our plans in relation to disabled student allowance, and we will be able to offer a measure of support for individual students. More details will be available on that matter in due course.
	Finally, we need to provide a fair deal for students. We need to remember that there are opportunity costs for students, particularly for those from less advantaged backgrounds who choose to go to university. They are not earning for three years and they have to maintain themselves, often at additional cost, in a strange town or city. The level of debt is significant and oppressive and it does represent a tax on learning. That is a tax that has been introduced by the Government. They may well recruit one or two more vice-chancellors to support them in their present course, although I think that those vice-chancellors are ill advised, but I can assure the House that they run the risk of losing the support of 1.5 million students and their parents and associatesa constituency of 5 million persons who know about the 9,000 a head price tag and will draw the appropriate electoral conclusion.

Alan Johnson: This debate, unlike Monday night's, highlights the stark choice before the British people. The Liberal Democrats have always added to the gaiety of the nation, but it will be a long time before they rule the nation. We enjoyed listening to their policies on Monday, but today we have seen the real stark choice. This issue concerns the future not just of higher education but of this country and where we want to be in the 21st century.
	What I find really amazing about the Conservative party is that, even after the full process of Letwinisation, even after the caring Conservative phrase, even after the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition had visited working-class estates in Edinburgh, and even after several focus groups and bonding sessionsor bondage sessions as they were called on Mondaywe have this Tory policy.
	What we are debating here is not whether we should see a growth in numbers, although that is an important issue to which I shall return, nor whether we could do more to widen participation, although that too is an important debate. Those are not the central issues. What we are talking about here is whether to expand higher education and to maintain investment in higher education for the good of the nation, or whether to contract and cut back, squeeze and freeze and damage opportunities for our young people.
	At best, 10 Conservative Back Benchers were present for this important Opposition day debate, yet the Conservative proposal is to remove 430 million of funding for higher education90,000 university places and 13,000 lecturers would go as part of their policyand to end payments of 193 million currently going through the Higher Education Funding Council for England to widen participation for youngsters from working class backgrounds in higher education. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred earlier, said in its press release this morning, that is a clear redistribution from poorer to richer households. That is at the core of the Conservative party's policy.
	In opening, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made a number of remarks with which we fully, wholeheartedly, 100 per cent. agree. He said that fair access should be based on merit. That is absolutely true. We have said that over and over again and it is in our document on wider participation. It will not be the role of OFFA in any way whatever to interfere in the basis for access to university. [Interruption.] I shall come to the purpose, but let us deal with the points on which we can agree.
	We also agree that we should concentrate on skills when we unveil our policy in the next week or so, and I assure hon. Members that it will be worth waiting for. They will see that we are investing a considerable amount in skills. We also agree that the key is to improve secondary education.
	Our White Paper deals with all those issues, but it does not duck the central question of how we will secure expansion and ensure good-quality higher education into the 21st century without additional funding. Much of Monday's debate was about how to provide that funding, but today's debate has been about reducing the amount that we invest in higher education.
	The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) told us how terrible Tory policy was and how the Liberal Democrats would therefore support the Conservatives in the Lobby this eveningan argument that lost me. He also asked about provisions to protect extra investment, which were also raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on Monday. I have given an assurance about that, as has the Secretary of State, but, perhaps more importantly, legislation already protects the funding council from taking fees income into account in its funding of institutions. Such provision already features in legislation and we have no intention of interfering with it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) showed her usual good grace and courtesy, and gave paeans of praise for the Government's policy. She mentioned pay for higher education lecturers. Of course, we have invested a considerable amount in the past three years and we will invest more in the next few years. She has a difference of view about the key issue, which we have not tried to hide: our proposals for variable fees. We say that, just as Dearing argued four years ago, graduates should make a contribution and that it should go to universities and not be centralised. She saidI hope this is correctthat someone's decision whether to go to university should not be determined by their parents' finances or the money in their pocket. Of course, the basis of our argument is that that will not happen. We are doing away with up-front tuition fees, students will repay money only when they are in work earning 15,000 a year or more and the debt will be repayable at very modest levels. If the difference between us were simply about the level of the increased tuition fee, it would not be so wide, but it is about much more.
	The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred at the start of his speech to somebody whom I suppose could be described as Paranoid of Hertsmere and what they had written to the newspapers. I think that there was paranoia and scaremongering in his speech. He spoke about supporting the reintroduction of assisted places and made it absolutely clear where the Conservative party wants to go in that regard. He accused the Government of attacking the middle class, when it is clear that the issue is about money moving from the poorer to the more wealthy, as this morning's report pointed out.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) made a very important point about the perception of debt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) pointed out, we are talking not about whether there should be debt for students and graduates, but about the level of that debt. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston made the important point that, if we scaremonger and frighten people about the level of debt, which is obviously an issue, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. What we need to do is ensure that youngsters understand that the money is an investment in their future and that, in terms of our proposals, it is not an onerous burden.
	The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) was simply wrong. He said that the drop-out rate had increased, as did the hon. Member for Ashford. The rate has not increased; it was 18 per cent. before we took office and it is 17 per cent. now. Indeed, it is now 17 per cent. of vastly increased student numbers, so that argument is not reasonable. Neither is the argument that the funding per student has been reduced. It is now 36 per cent. more; we reversed that trend.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who will be seeing more of me on our train journeys between London and SelbyI congratulate him on his appointment as president of the parliamentary beer clubsaid that we need Dearing II. Let us look at Dearing I. Dearing represented a very important contribution to the debate. The Conservative Government set up the Dearing committee of inquiry. Conservative Members supported tuition fees through the Lobby, yet they cannot accept Dearing's central proposal, which is that there has to be increased funding, some of which needs to come from the graduate.
	This has been an extremely interesting debate. We believe that universities are powerful instruments for transforming society and that they are a civilising influence on society. The Conservatives' policy is a triumph of opportunity over integrity[Interruption.] I meant of opportunism over integrityI correct that slip straight away. Even the families whom they purport to help will find that they have been sold a pup when they realise that their child will find it harder to find a place at university. If we are to pull youngsters through to the stage where they have two A-levels and the chance of a university placeas all hon. Members agree that we shouldand they find that the place is no longer available, that entire generation will have been let down. Even worse, the Conservatives' policy would drive down attainment, because those who get two A-levels will not have those university places to go to. So, to the delight of our international competitors and to the dismay of the higher education sector and business

Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House rejects any proposal to abolish the existing fee of 1,100, which would lead to substantial reductions in the numbers of places in higher education and, as a consequence, fewer lecturers and a lower quality higher education experience; congratulates the Government on its plan to abolish up front tuition fees and to raise the threshold for repayment of loans from 10,000 to 15,000; welcomes the steps that the Government is taking to widen participation amongst students from deprived backgrounds, the establishment of the Office for Fair Access, the introduction from 200405 of a 1,000 grant for students from the poorest backgrounds and better support for part-time students; condemns any proposal to withdraw the funding that is already being spent on widening participation, which would lead to fewer students from deprived backgrounds entering higher education and completing their degrees; and supports the continued expansion in participation planned by the Government and the part to be played by foundation degrees designed in collaboration with employers as an appropriate strategy to equip the UK workforce with the high level skills needed to compete in the global marketplace.

Fair Trade

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the debate on fair terms for international trade. I must advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. There will be an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions to the debate.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move,
	That this House shares the concern of the Trade Justice Movement about the plight of the poorest people in the world, and congratulates the Movement on bringing their conditions to the attention of the public; notes with concern the fact that a billion people live on less than a dollar a day, that life expectancy in many African countries is declining, and that 30 million people in Africa have HIV/AIDS; believes that rising levels of international trade and trade liberalisation offer the best hope of alleviating poverty in the developing world; calls for high quality legal and economic advice for developing countries on trade issues; further believes that the Government has failed to do enough to promote trade liberalisation, to reform agricultural subsidies and to phase out European trade barriers; and further calls on the Government to use the World Trade Organisation meeting at Cancun to do more to reform the international trade rules to give poor countries a fair deal on international trade.
	There is a terrible sense of dj vu in holding this debate on our Opposition day exactly one year after our last such debate. If we look back over the past year, what have the Government really achieved in respect of securing fair terms for international trade? We share the frustration of the Trade Justice Movement that so little progress has been made.
	Unlike the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who wrote in The Guardian this week that she fundamentally agrees with the Trade Justice Movement, I can honestly say that although we share many of the movement's demands, we do not share them all. However, we congratulate it on bringing these issues into the public arena and giving us the chance to debate them openly. I shall be holding a trade justice surgery in my constituency on Friday, and I urge Members to take the opportunity, as I know that many are doing, to meet campaigners.
	The case for fair rules of international trade is overwhelming. The United Nations estimates that if trade rules worked for poor countries, they could reap benefits of up to $700 billion a year14 times the amount that developing countries receive each year in aid, and 30 times the amount that they pay in debt repayments.
	One of the best parting shots of the outgoing Secretary of State for International Development was made in her withering analysis of the failure of successive trade talks to make any meaningful progress. In her speech on the dangers to Doha at Chatham house on 25 March, she said that
	failure in the Doha Round of the World Trade talks mean a tragic missed opportunity to tackle the distortions and unfairness in trade rules that disadvantage the poorest producers and the poorest countries.
	She also said that
	we missed 2 key development milestones:
	on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights and public health, and on special and differential treatment for developing countries. She described how the discussions in Geneva are stalling, destroying trust between World Trade Organisation members and dissipating their willingness to negotiate.
	Yet we are only three months away from the next round of the trade talks, in Cancun this September, with very little progress to show for all the efforts made. The post-11 September spirit of contrite concern for the world's poor, which led to Doha being called a development round, seems to have given way to vested interest, the old complacencies and the status quo.

Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is doubly disappointing, because since the last Doha round and within Europe, a step has been taken in the wrong direction? The reality is that there are now fewer prospects than ever for the European Union properly to open up its markets to the producers of the third world.

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall mention in a few moments the disappointing results of the most recent common agricultural policy negotiations.
	Where is the will to change? We hear plenty of rhetoric about healing the scars of Africa, but we see little improvement. The poorest countries' share of world trade has dropped by almost half since 1981 and is now just 0.4 per cent. There is an air of business as usual about the place. Last Friday's conclusion to the discussion on reforming the CAP was utterly depressing. Despite all the rhetoric about Britain playing a lead role in Europe, the Prime Minister appears to have capitulated before France and Germany to a deal that leaves the CAP substantially unreformed and the level of subsidies uncut until 2013only two years before the deadline for meeting the millennium development goals. They were targets that we set ourselves to lift people out of poverty, ill health and missed opportunity, and to ensure that no one is left behind. At the European summit last weekend, the Prime Minister returned without, apparently, having raised the issue of the CAP with the French President and with no mention of the importance of CAP reform in the Council's conclusions.
	Agriculture is of key importance because three quarters of the world's poor live in rural areas. Agricultural produce is virtually their only source of cash, and developing countries are particularly vulnerable because production tends to be focused on a small number of cash crops. Yet the rich nations of the world regularly destroy opportunities in growth markets by dumping surplus agricultural production with subsidies from taxpayers' money. One of the starkest examples is in India, which, as the world's largest producer of milk, is unable to compete in the growth market of the middle east because of the subsidised exports from, among other places, Europe. It is a shameful comparison that every cow in the European Union is subsidised by $2 a day, while 3 billion of the world's poor live on less than that amount.
	Export subsidies are the most iniquitous feature of the CAP and even France is willing to acknowledge their damaging effects, but where is the will to remove them? The CAP does not now even serve our own farmers well. They suffer from exactly the same problem as developing farmersseeing the middlemen take more and more of the profit on what they produce for diminishing returns at the farm gate.

Nick Palmer: Would the hon. Lady be willing to overcome the roadblock by removing the right of nations to declare it an absolute strategic interest to keep the common agricultural policy? She will be aware that there is a qualified majority in favour of going much further than France is willing to go, but France is declaring the CAP to be a vital national interest. Would the hon. Lady be willing to give that up?

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Gentleman's intervention reminds me of a similar one last year. The point about using the veto in favour of national interest is that it is so frequently abused, and it is the abuse of national interest that presents the real problem.
	Farmers in this country suffer from exactly the same problem as developing farmers in seeing middlemen taking more of their profit. I would go so far as to urge British farmers to join the fair trade campaign and demonstrate real solidarity with the world's poor farmers. Like the Columbian coffee farmer, the East Anglian sugar beet producer would then make common cause to balance the power of the big food retailers and supermarkets. Consumers could buy products marked with the fair trade symbol knowing that, at home or abroad, more of the profit will go to the farmer.

Andy Reed: Does the hon. Lady agree that not just fair trade but co-operative fair trade makes an enormous difference for farmers? On my recent visit to Ethiopia, I visited a coffee co-operative where the vast majority of the profit made along the entire chain went back to the individual farmers, who received probably four times more than they would get if they just sold their produce to the market. Is that an acceptable approach?

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The co-operative principle, whether abroad or in this country, has been very successful in helping farmers to secure more of the value added to their product and ensuring that their farm gate returns rise. It is certainly a principle that we support.

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend referred to milk and India earlier. Is not it a great shame that this countryfor whatever reason, but mainly due to pressure from the European Unionabolished one of the most successful co-operatives of all time, the milk marketing board? Can my hon. Friend assure me that those matters, which have stood British farmers in good stead, will be considered by the Opposition, if not by the Government?

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend makes an important point about a complex and highly competitive international market for dairy produce. It is important to reiterate that we have called for a review of the way in which the present rules governing the dairy industry in this country operate, in view of the intense competition from other large producers, such as New Zealandthe lowest cost producerand Denmark, to ensure that our farmers are able to compete on fair terms with them.
	The European Union is not the only offender. The US Farm Bill, which recently granted an extra $100 billion in farm subsidies, distorts world trade in the same way. On a recent visit to Malawi, I learned that 300,000 Malawian farmers had been persuaded by American companies to grow premium grade tobacco. Once the crop was established, the price was driven down to $1.6 a kilo, compared with the subsidised price received by US domestic farmers of more than $6 a kilo. US farmers produced more, the world price fell, and now the Malawians are out of business.
	Cotton subsidies are another example. The price of cotton is at an all-time low and cotton farmers in developing countries are suffering most from the plummeting prices. In the US last year, for example, some 25,000 cotton producers received almost $4 billion in subsidies. That is three times more than the US gave in aid to Africa. Oxfam estimates that Africa is losing $300 million a year as a result of cotton subsidies, and that prices would rise by a quarter if the unfair subsidies were eliminated.
	Members of the Trade Justice Movement are not against a rules-based system of international trade, but they want it to be fairand so do I. They are sceptical about the way in which the World Trade Organisation works, because it appears to favour the rich and powerful nations. Rich countries, especially the US, Japan and Canada, and the European Union, have well-funded teams of specialist negotiators, while half of the poorest countries cannot afford them. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has announced that we would help to create an advocacy fund for developing countries to use to provide themselves with high quality legal and economic advice on trade issues. Let us face it, we are not short of lawyers.

Tom Watson: Can the hon. Lady enlighten us on how big the budget for that fund would be? Would it be greater than the 60 million that was cut from the aid budget in 1995, which was five times more than the annual income of Oxfam for that year?

Caroline Spelman: I construe from that intervention that the hon. Gentleman does not think that it is a good idea to provide developing countries with equal representation and that he does not believe that rich nations have a shared responsibility to create a level playing field.

Stephen O'Brien: I applaud my hon. Friend's speech and the policy announcement of the advocacy fund, which has been hugely welcomednot least because it would give developing countries the choice when it came to accessing the appropriate advice to be on terms at the WTO. The Chancellor and other Ministers seek to ensure that they have continued all-party support for many of their international initiatives, so does she agree that it is disappointing that when we seek such support for our policy, the Government remain significantly silent? That shows that they do not care about equal-terms advocacy.

Caroline Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he will know, there is usually a remarkably high level of consensus on the subject of international development. My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor has welcomed the increased spending on international development that the Government have announced. Therefore, I too find it disappointing that the practical suggestion set out by my hon. Friend has not been taken up so far. Perhaps the Minister will have an opportunity this afternoon to correct thator perhaps the Government have something else in mind.
	Although the WTO is a relatively new organisation, it must be seen to operate fairly if it is win the trust and confidence of those countries that feel poorly served by it at present. I was rather intrigued by something that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in her article in the The Guardian this week. She said that the Government would create new institutions to deal with unfair trade. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what she has in mind.

Simon Thomas: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I welcome the motion before the House, and the spirit in which she is speaking to it. She mentioned trade liberalisation, and the failure to increase the amount of trade in which developing countries can take part. Although supporters of the Trade Justice Movement would accept much of what she has said so far, they also believe that developing countries should have the ability to grow their own economies to the point where they are strong enough to take part in the WTO. What ideas does she have for allowing that to happen and ensuring that trade liberalisation does not mean simply that large multinational companies exploit developing countries?

Caroline Spelman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but he may not understand the important fact that trade liberalisation has brought benefits to developing countries. I shall be discussing later whether or not, on balance, trade liberalisation has been good for developing countries.
	That is an important question. In last week's edition of The Big Issue, an overwhelming case was made for the benefits of trade liberalisation. The magazine set out what globalisation can do to improve the prospects of a developing country by reducing poverty and boosting its economy.
	As the UN's development programme has observed, global poverty has declined more in the past 50 years than in the previous 500. In those five decades, there has been substantial trade liberalisation. Indeed, the number of absolute poorpeople who live on less than $1 a dayhas fallen by 200 million in the past two decades, even though the world's population has grown by 1.5 billion.
	Globalisation is a buzz word that anti-capitalist protestors have seized on. They have attacked it as the source of the world's ills, but globalisationwhich is capitalism, if Labour Members can screw up their courage to use the wordis what the Government now believe in. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) has said that
	multilateral trade liberalisation is an indispensable part of development.
	It is a key driver of economic growth, butand this may be of interest to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)it needs to go hand in hand with good governance and effective institutions that channel its power for good.
	The world is an unequal place. Resources are not distributed evenly, but it is what Governments do with what they have that makes all the difference. With certain exceptions such as Burma and North Korea, the open-market policies of the Asian continent have brought huge progress. Several African countries with a pro-market approach, such as Botswana, Uganda and Mauritius, have achieved economic growth, but others remain mired in the deepest misery. They suffer from conflict, corruption, sickness andall too oftenfrom hugely burdensome bureaucracies that hold them back.

Gary Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am certainly enjoying her excellent speech. Does she agree that in the past 20 years it has been shown that good governance, the rule of law and a market-based economy are the key ingredients to a developing nation becoming prosperous and providing for its people? Does she consider that that ought to be more of a focus for Government policy than is currently the case?

Caroline Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He knows the subject well, having preceded me effectively in this post. He is right. India, because it is so populous, is probably the largest of many examples of a nation that realised that it was losing its competitive position and that trade liberalisation would unleash real opportunity. That is one of the best examples with which to encourage other developing nations to take the same steps.
	The International Development Act 2002 focused on poverty reduction, which we support. During the scrutiny of that measure, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who spoke for the Opposition, pointed out that we must not lose sight of the importance of fostering good governancesomething that was reflected in the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. Good governance and effective institutions are essential to help to ensure trade liberalisation. Together, they bring real development and progress in those countries.

Andrew Robathan: The point that my hon. Friend made, backing up our hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), is right and I agree with everything that she has been saying. In essence, the aims of the Trade Justice Movement are pretty good and, in some ways, we can support them. However, when one visits a country such as Angola, as I did last month, and discovers that the president is pocketing $1 billion of oil revenue every year, while our aid programme is but 12 million a year, it puts everything into perspective. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. Politicians, whatever our persuasion, represent our electorate and make choices on their behalf. We try to provide leadership on policy, but the bad news stories, such as the one that my hon. Friend highlighted, create much public scepticism about the effective use of taxpayers' money. That is why it is so important to encourage and foster good governance and to stamp out corruption. We can then be confident that our taxpayers' money is being used to maximum effect to help the poorest countries in the world.
	I do not want to stand in this place next year bemoaning the lack of progress on international trade reform. As the Prime Minister said, the biggest thing happening in the next six months is world trade: Cancun represents a milepost, yet nothing prevents progress on CAP reform but the selfishness of those who do not want change. Meanwhile, coffee farmers in Ethiopia are dying in their huts and throughout the world people's livelihoods are being ruined.
	In his 2001 conference speech, the Prime Minister said that we must practise the free trade that we are so fond of preaching. In this country, we are so tired of his rhetoric that no one believes him any more. People in other countries see little benefit from that rhetoric in their livelihoods. I urge the Government and all hon. Members to seize the opportunity to bring about a fair deal in world trade for our fellow citizens throughout the world.

Hilary Benn: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	congratulates the Trade Justice Movement on bringing the plight of the poorest people in the world to the attention of the public; notes with concern the fact that a billion people live on less than a dollar a day, that life expectancy in many African countries is declining, and that 30 million people in Africa have HIV/AIDS; reaffirms the commitment made in the 2000 White Paper Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century to improving international trade rules so that they work for all countries, and especially the poorest, in helping to reduce poverty; notes that the successful pursuit of trade reform through the Doha round of multilateral negotiations could contribute substantially to the Millennium Development Goals; welcomes the substantial efforts the Government is making to promote trade liberalisation, reform agricultural subsidies and phase out European trade barriers; believes that significant progress must be made to improve access for developing countries to developed country markets; further believes that a solution to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and public health negotiations is urgently needed; and welcomes the commitment to ensuring that the Doha round produces real benefits for the poor.
	First, I welcome the debate and the Opposition's choice of subject, not least because it gives the House the chance to discuss development and trade in the week of the Trade Justice Movement's lobby of Members of Parliament. Secondly, I offer a warm welcome to the Treasury Bench and to the Department for International Development to the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who will reply to the debate. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in wishing him well in his post. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I already enjoy working with him.

Caroline Spelman: I was remiss in not welcoming the Under-Secretary to his new post. I am grateful to the Minister for giving me this opportunity to make it clear that I should have done so.

Hilary Benn: While we are in this mood of generosity, may I say that I also welcome a great deal of what the hon. Lady said in her speech? She put with clarity and force the case for fairer trade as a means of helping to encourage development. I say a great deal not because I am churlish, but because her argument was at its least convincing when she tried to suggest that the Government are not trying hard enough similarly to make the case that she has put to the House this afternoon. That is not true, and I suspect that she knows that it is not true, not least because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is leading the WTO negotiations, is passionate about the issue and committed to making this a round for development. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right to askthis is the question for the House to consider this afternoonwhether, overall, the world is doing enough to deliver a fairer trading system. We are all concerned about whether we will make progress.
	The background to the debatethe reason why it mattersis the daily reality of life for the 1.2 billion of our fellow human beings who live in abject poverty and lack the basic necessities that all hon. Members take for granted: clean water to drink, the chance to go to school and someone to heal them when they fall ill. Those people only wish for themselves and their families the things that hon. Members wish for the people whom we represent: the chance to live to a reasonable age, to be part of a community, to raise a family and to earn a living.

John Taylor: I wonder whether the Minister would care to tell the House just how unhelpful he thinks the common agricultural policy is?

Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me a moment, I intend to come to that very point, because it is a very important part of the challenge that we face if we are to deliver progress for those 1.2 billion people.
	As always in international development debates, it will be common cause across the House that global poverty amid so much plenty in the world is the single greatest challenge that we face. It is morally wrong. It is unjust. It feeds bitterness, division and conflict. All those are reasons why the world community, including the Government and the Opposition parties, are so committed to making poverty reduction one of the main millennium development goals. As the hon. Lady rightly said, they are the goals against which those 1.2 billion people will judge our commitment to making a difference to their lives. That is the issue.
	International trade is one of the most important means that we have to try to eliminate global poverty because it is about providing countries with increased opportunities to trade, to provide employment for their citizens and to allow poor people to improve their lives. More exports produce higher economic growth, greater encouragement of domestic reform and, therefore, faster poverty reduction. It is estimated that the increased income for developing countries from a 50 per cent. cut in protection, by developed and developing countries, would be about $150 billion a yearin other words, three times the value of all the aid that rich countries give to the poorer countries of the world.
	If the House is weighing in its mind the balance of benefit, making progress on world trade can do more than we in the rich world are seeking to do in the aid that we give. The hon. Lady referred to the World Bank's estimates of the impact that eliminating all barriers to trade in goods would generate. Indeed, the figures that she quoted would have the potential to lift 300 million people out of poverty by 2015.

Cheryl Gillan: For the poorer countries to benefit from better trade conditions, it is important they all have an equal voice at the table. One of the great criticisms at the last Uruguay round was that 28 countries had no representation at all in Geneva. I wonder whether the Minister would tell us what progress the Government have made towards giving those countries a better voice.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. I was going to address that issue later, but I shall do so directly, since she has raised it, and take the opportunity to refer to the importance of improving the capacity of developing countries to participate in the process and of supporting negotiators, as they engage in trade reform. That is why, in the White Paper, Making Globalisation Work for the Poor, published in 2000, the Government made a pledge to spend 45 million on trade-related capacity building activities between 1998 to 2004. That work is continuing and the funding has supported, among other things, the integrated framework, the Agency for International Trade Information and Development Co-operation and the Advisory Centre on WTO Law in Geneva.
	That directly addresses the point raised by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in referring to the shadow Chancellor's proposal, because the advisory centre already provides to developing, least-developed and transition countries free or low-cost legal support to those members pursuing cases in the dispute settlement mechanism. It provides seminars on WTO jurisprudence, general legal advice on WTO law and an internship programme for officials. It is working on precisely the issue to which the shadow Chancellor drew attention in his initiative. The only difference is that that work is already being done through the support that we are giving to that body.

Stephen O'Brien: Does the Minister recognise, however, that there is a difference between the advocacy fund proposed by my party and the advisory centre in so far as while the advisory centre makes certain advice availablenot least in dispute resolutionthe key is negotiating in the trade rounds on equal terms? Under the advocacy fund proposal, developing countries have the choice of the advice rather than being patronisingly offered advice that the west thinks is fit for them, which inevitably builds up resentment.

Hilary Benn: I accept entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the importance of supporting the development of that kind of independent capacity. That is why, if we look at the development programmes in which the Department for International Development is involved in many countries of the world, building domestic capacity within finance ministries and trade ministries to engage in these debates and to understand what the changes proposed in the WTO may mean for their country and their people is an important part of that work. My point is simply that while I understand the motivation behind the shadow Chancellor's proposals, we already fund support mechanisms internationally, and the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is already a central part of the work that we do increasingly with developing countries' Governments. He is right that they need the capacity; the question is what is the most effective way to do it. In truth, as I think that he would accept on reflection, the most effective place in which to build that capacity is in the institutions of government of those countries, allowing them to send their representatives and their Ministers well-armed with arguments to put in the negotiations that will take place.
	In recognising the importance of trade in helping to reduce poverty, it is important that we do not overstate the case. Trade alone is not the answer, although it is one very important factor in stimulating economic growth. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out in his intervention, effective states with effective institutions, which implement the right policies such as investment in infrastructure, health and education, are the states that are in the best position to try to benefit from the effects of trade liberalisation. Trade liberalisation and effective governance must go hand in hand, which was a point rightly made by the hon. Member for Meriden. That is why we are so heavily involved as a Government and as a Department in helping African and other developing countries to strengthen their institutions and therefore their capacity to develop economically.
	If we accept the argument about the benefits of trade, of course, we should be concerned that the current global trading system does not deliver those promised benefits and does not work for the poor.

David Heath: Does the Minister share any of the concerns that some have expressed that by trying to widen the scope of the discussions at Cancun, the Government are effectively ignoring the fact that so many of the commitments from Doha have not yet been implemented?

Hilary Benn: I do not accept that argument, and if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I intend to address that point later in my remarks. It is an important point, not least because the Trade Justice Movement has chosen to make it a particular focus of its activities during this week.
	The hon. Member for Meriden was right that rich countries' protectionist policies are stopping developing countries from benefiting, which means that the poorest countries in the world have few opportunities to grow and to trade their way out of poverty. That is why the agreement in Doha in November 2001 to try to make this a development round was so important. For the first time, in a significant way, which I think that we all recognise, it put development at the centre of the argument about world trade. That commitment is shared across different Departmentsit is not just a commitment for the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department for International Development but for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairsall of which are committed to making a difference. That is a sign of the importance that we give collectively to poverty reduction and, if I may say so, a reason why the Trade Justice Movement focused the energies of its lobbying campaign elsewhere, which relates to what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said. The movement would acknowledge the force of the Government's argument, which shows why the Opposition's criticism that we are not trying hard enough is wide of the mark.
	However, that is not to say that success is assuredit is not. Despite everything at stake, progress during the negotiations has been painfully slow. Critical deadlines have been missed. The issues that matter most to developing countries, which are agriculture, special and differential treatmentI add that to the list that the hon. Member for Meriden gave ushealth and trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, are the key issues on which we as the world community, not as the UK Government, will be judged.

Gary Streeter: I think that the Government are doing their best in a difficult situation. It is, of course, outside their power to deliver, and they must do their best, as I am sure that they do. Will the Minister comment on accountability regarding the World Trade Organisation? Does he think that WTO talks are sufficiently well reported back to the House and that Ministers focus sufficiently on the specifics of the talks as they unfold?

Hilary Benn: I recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement to the House before she went to Doha to lay out the objectives that she and other Ministers would pursue. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair pointI think that it was the broader point behind his questionabout the need to ensure that the issues are discussed widely so that people from all countries may express their views to their Governments before they go to Doha. He recognises that decisions must be taken by consensus in the end.
	I promised that I would turn to agriculture. Agriculture is the most important aspect of the negotiations for most developing countries because it offers the potential of the biggest gains for the world's poor. Liberalisation of agricultural trade could boost developing countries' exports by at least $30 billion a year, and perhaps by as much as $100 billion by 2015. That could lead to an annual increase of gross domestic product of almost 1 per cent. throughout the continent of Africa. Of course, Africa is the continent on which our success or failure to meet the millennium development goals rests because it is the only continent that has gone economically backwards during the past generation. Its share of world trade has halved and half the savings generated leave it each year. It cannot hold on to half the wealth that it manages to create.
	Agricultural markets are the most heavily protected, so we urgently need to tackle distortions in global agricultural trade that are created by our high tariff barriers, the current structure of our domestic support regimes and our subsidised exports. That is especially important because it is the aspect on which many of the poorest countries have the greatest natural trading advantage. It explains why the statement made by African Finance Ministers after their meeting in Addis Ababa this month said that they note with concern that Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development agricultural subsidies have a major and negative impact on the agriculture sector in the majority of their countries. That is the voice of developing countries making the case for change.

Simon Thomas: On agriculture and the WTO, the Minister will know that only this week the United States Government decided to pursue a case against the European Union on genetically modified organisms. What is the Government's view of the use of GMOs in developing countries and, especially, of the way in which the US Government subsidise their companies to import and introduce GMOs into those countries, thus giving farmers little choice of whether to grow GM crops or not?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The answer to his central question about the policy of Governments is that they should weigh up the same considerations for their countries as we are trying to do in the United Kingdom. Developing countries' Governments should take their own decisions based on their assessment and knowledge of what they think is safe and in the best interest of their countries' future. It is important that they have the power and ability to make those decisions. Others should not make those decisions for them.

Stephen O'Brien: The Minister is generous in giving way a second time. Does he recognise that the removal of the tariff barriers would encourage a greater number of cash crops to be grown, which tend to be commoditised and fall prey to the cyclical nature of commodity prices in global markets? For a number of countries, that has hindered the completion of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. Does he agree that equal emphasis should be given to value-added manufacturing and distribution instead of having to cede that value chain to the rich western world?

Hilary Benn: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument completely. Giving developing countries the opportunity, as he put it, to add value from goods that they produce would be a good way of enabling them to participate more effectively, and with greater benefit to their people, in the world trading process.
	On reform of the CAP, the negotiations in Brussels resumed today. The deal that was put on the table last Friday is good, but there is a considerable way to go. The Government have always said that they want a good deal, not any deal, and we are determined to get one. That is why we are working hard with our EU partners to secure that change. However, if hon. Members are honest with themselves, they will recognise that the debate on CAP reform has been going on for a quarter of a century or longer. It is a long-term project and we should be aware of the difficulty of making such a change.

Parmjit Dhanda: I do not wish to break up the cross-party consensus on many of the issues raised, but does my hon. Friend have a message for Conservative MEPs, who consistently vote with the right in the European Parliament to protect the CAP rather than to reform it?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes a strong and pertinent point. The basis on which we will be judged as elected representativeswhether as Members of this House or as Members of the European Parliamentis whether by our votes, as well as by our words, we support the objectives raised in the debate, which I think hon. Members on both sides of the House share.
	The second key issue is access to medicines. At Doha, we promised to make the World Trade Organisation's rules on intellectual property flexible enough for developing countries that cannot produce the medicines they need to tackle grave health emergencies. We were on the verge of a workable compromise in December last year, but the United States of America, responding to its industry's concerns, has to date blocked the deal. It fears that the proposed solution would be used by developing countries to override patents on what it regards as non-essential medicines.
	Those fears have to be addressed. They are not insurmountable. We believe that the December 2002 proposals address those concerns, but it is vital that at Cancun, if not before, we are able to make progress. For many developing countries, progress on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rightsTRIPSand access to medicines is a litmus test of whether we are serious, as a developed world, about giving them the support and help that they need.

Richard Allan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I have been generous in giving way and am anxious to conclude my remarks because many hon. Members wish to speak.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned the new issues, which feature prominently in the Trade Justice Movement's lobbying campaign. The Government believe that an appropriate framework agreement on the new issuesinvestment, competition and the way in which trade is conductedcould help. Competition could be aided by tackling the anti-competitive practices used by big international and domestic cartels. The basic rules on transparent procedure in Government procurement could help to promote good governance and reduce corruption.
	As for investment, no one would disagree that it is what developing countries want and need more than anything else if they are to make progress, but let us be clear: the existence of a multilateral agreement of itself would not guarantee that developing countries attract more investment, but it could provide clarity and security for investors on the right terms, thereby playing a part in helping those countries to lift their people out of poverty. Let me make the Government's position clear: we would not sign up to something that we did not believe to be in the interests of developing countries overall.

Sandra Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that it not just a question of having the capacity to have a place at the table, but is also about having a voice that is listened to so that considered opinions can be heard? Does he acknowledge that many of the developing countries have expressed grave concern about extending the agenda to include new issues if that voice is listened to?

Hilary Benn: I agree entirely about the importance of voices being listened to. If that is to be the case, voices have to be heard, opinions articulated, positions adopted and arguments advanced. As for the World Trade Organisation, the debate has moved on, and we should acknowledge that we hear fewer people saying that the WTO is the cause of all the problems and is an instrument that we should get rid of. Indeed, I noted with great interest the conversion of George Monbiot in his article in The Guardian on 24 June. He said:
	The only thing worse than a world with the wrong international trade rules is a world with no trade rules at all.
	That is why his article was headed I was wrong about trade, and I agree with his argument. Because the WTO is a consensus-based organisation we need to talk up developing countries' capacity to use their power in negotiations, where people give and take but in the end have to reach agreement. We need to talk up their potential power in the WTO to get the agreements that they want. We should not, as sometimes happens in debates in some quarters, although it has not happened today, pat them on the head and say, It is all rather difficult. I do not believe that that is the case. Developing countries have the capacity and knowledge to use their power. In the end, who is more committed to the future and interests of a country than its people and Government?
	Finally, a generation ago, a debate about international development would probably not have included the speech made by the hon. Member for Meriden because it would have focused far more on aid than trade. That shows how all our views have changed in the intervening period. We have learned that while aid still matters enormouslythat is why more is needed and why the Government are providing morethe chance to earn a living in the world matters more, as it can deliver more benefits. That is a huge difference between the international debate now and the debate a generation ago. However, we now have chance to make a much more important difference to the lives of the 1.2 billion people who live on less than a dollar a day. History will not judge us kindly if we fail, which is why we owe it to them to succeed.

Jenny Tonge: As I have not yet had an opportunity to do so, may I welcome the bevy of beauty and talent representing international development on the Government Front Bench? However, I am outraged by the fact that the Secretary of State is not in the House of Commons, and is not answerable to the elected representatives of the people of this country.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on convincing her party to use the Opposition day for this debate. I know how difficult it can be to convince colleagues that in the long term developing world issues are as important as national issues, if not more important. I congratulate her on her excellent speech, but it is a pity that the Tories' record in government did not match the rhetoric that we have heard this afternoon[Interruption.] In answer to those sedentary interventions, I would say just give us the chance, and we will show you.
	As the hon. Member for Meriden said, this is the second year running that we have had this debate. My constituents have organised a fun event on Saturday and have asked me to take part in a tug-of-war to represent the struggle of poor countries against the rich. While I appreciate how useful my ballast would be on the poor countries' side against the CAP and other evil things, Members will be relieved to hear that I am going to be the referee and will hold the white handkerchief in the middle.
	The fact that the debate has become an annual event makes me very angry. The CAP is still unreformed and the world still dances to the tune of the United States of America. Have we no influence at all in the world? The right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) stated in May this yearsadly, after he had stepped down from the Department of Trade and Industry:
	No one should doubt the hugely significant role that international trade could play in tackling poverty. In terms of income, trade has the potential to be far more important than aid or debt relief for developing countries. For example, an increase in Africa's share of world exports by just 1 per cent. could generate . . . five times the total amount of aid received by African countries.
	It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman did not think of that when he was at the DTI.
	We have heard some good things from the current Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In a speech to the European Parliament in January, she said all that had to be saida beautifully crafted speech. I congratulate the civil servant who crafted it. It was wonderful stuff and said all the right things, but where is the action? Can she deliver?
	It is infuriating that the millions of dollars spent on meetings of world leaders at the G8 or the negotiating rounds of the World Trade Organisation, plus all the security costs now involved, would go a huge way to helping the very countries under discussionthe poorestto have adequate representation to make their voices heard, as several hon. Members have commented this afternoon. I have asked for the figures involved in such meetings of Heads of State and Ministers, and I understand that they will be published on 1 July. They are eagerly awaited by my office.

Nick Palmer: I was unable to get a reply from the official Opposition on whether they would favour the abolition of the rule that European countries can claim absolute national interest to protect the CAP. Would the Liberal Democrats favour abolition of that?

Jenny Tonge: The Liberal Democrats have long called for the reform of the CAP. I will come to that later in my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient.
	Once again, here we are rehearsing the arguments, while half the world's population, 3 billion people, live on less than $2 a day, and 1.2 billion20 per cent. of the world's populationlive on less than $1 a day. We must keep reminding ourselves that the global economy allows us to live in great luxury, with even the poorest in our society receiving at least enough to eat, while children all over the world die of starvation and disease. We must never forget them when we discuss debt relief and trade issues.
	If we do, poverty and despair will lead to war and terrorism, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and I saw vividly a couple of weeks ago, and more despaira vicious circle which, as we have seen in recent years, spills over into attacks on our comfortable way of life. The concrete blocks outside this place and the armed police everywhere in the building are an indirect result of our failure to address the needs of the poorest people in the world, and we must constantly remind ourselves of that.
	The trade rules that apply in the world today have caused mayhem all over the third world. Many of us have seen the results. The fall in coffee prices in the early 1990s and our failure to address the problem triggered the Rwandan genocide. Banana farmers all over the Caribbean have to look for an alternative crop because of the USA's determination to protect big boys like Chiquita and Del Monte. That, combined with the US policy to spray Colombian coca fields with herbicides, is likely to encourage Caribbean farmers to turn to the cultivation of illegal crops instead. What sort of progress is that? In the north of Ghana, I saw farmers made destitute because, thanks to the subsidies given to American farmers by their Government, American rice is cheaper than the rice grown in Ghana.
	There are many other examples. As the hon. Member for Meriden said, European dairy cowsthis is one of the juiciest bits of allreceive a subsidy of $2 a day. That is the daily income of half the world's population. I am tempted to say that I wish I was a cow, but that may produce a response from hon. Members that is not complimentary. What madness this all is. What madness are we indulging in?
	American industrial and farm subsidies and the CAP in Europe have to be reformed. They are worth 200 billion a year. It is immoral to expect poor countries to open up their markets to our goods when our exports are so heavily subsidised and when in many cases we erect barriers for their exports to us.
	Will the Minister please tell us what concrete progress we can expect? I know that he hopes and believes, but what will he achieve? I am well aware of the anything but arms agreement between the EU and the least developed countries, but sugar, rice and bananas were taken out of that agreement. They are precisely the goods that they could have produced to their advantage. We have seen Mozambique, Zambia and Malawi suffer from that policy. They could produce sugar very cheaply, but they cannot compete with subsidised European crops.
	I have said that Liberal Democrats want the CAP reformed, and it must be reformed. What will happen when the EU has 25 states? Will the new European members expect the same subsidies as current members receive for their farmers? I understand that the CAP budget will remain at its current level of 30 billion a year, so it will be spread much more thinly anyway and our farmers will have much less subsidy. Could we hear from some Minister or other just what preparations are being made for that and how we will build in a reduction in subsidies so that farmers in the poorest parts of the world can benefit too?
	One issue that particularly concerns me is the ever-festering issue of trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, or in plain language that rule overseen by the World Trade Organisation which means in practice that developing countries cannot use cheaper versions of drugs that they need, such as retrovirals for AIDS, even when they can manufacture them, as in the case of Kenya. The developed countries hold 97 per cent. of world patents and any attempt to relax the rule is being blocked by the USA.

Richard Allan: I am glad that both my hon. Friend and the Minister have mentioned TRIPS, which is an important issue within the world trade negotiations. But is she concerned that the trend in intellectual property law in developed countries is towards broadening and deepening the scope of intellectual property protection, so that we may find that people in developing countries are excluded from an even greater range of products that they need if they cannot afford the licence fees to go back to companies in the developed world?

Jenny Tonge: My hon. Friend is right. Despite all the developments in genetics and all the new medical and scientific developments, we are going backwards instead of forwards. Developing countries will be more and more shut out of the developed world if something is not done about this.
	I have asked before and I ask again: what representations have we seriously made to the USA on that issue? Why are we not successful? The USA does not want to contribute to the global health fund in substantial amounts, lest any of the preventive health programmes of the global health fund contain measures to provide safe abortion. We all know how it has withdrawn funds from the United Nations Population Fund. On the other hand, it refuses to allow the cheaper generic drugs to be used in developing countries. That allows me to come to the conclusion that the much trumpeted $15 billion to fight AIDS from George Bush, about which we have all heard recently, is a straight contribution to the United States' pharmaceutical companies, because it cannot be spent on very much else. When will the Government challenge the USA about that?

Brian Cotter: My hon. Friend mentioned Rwanda and made clear points about the need for cheaper drugs. The case is made in Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands of women and others are dying because of HIV/AIDS. Fortunately, the few Rwandans who have come to this country and received treatment can now live out their lives.

Jenny Tonge: My hon. Friend is right, but we must not think that drugs are the only answer to the AIDS epidemic. Sadly, however much we fight even for generic versions, many developing countries will not have the money to afford those drugs and their economies will suffer as a result. Everyone knows that AIDS attacks the economically active members of the community.
	I desperately want to make the point that, before we start to engage in the traditional multinational company bashing and to refer to the wicked, evil drug companies about which we hear so much from NGOs and campaigners, we should ask: is it not time that they were recognised as being able to make a huge contribution to development?
	I recently learned of a public-private partnership in Botswana between Merck Sharp Dohme, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Botswana Government themselves. I see the hon. Member for Meriden nodding, as she has also heard of the project. Such a partnership is delivering all the prevention measures, education, health care and retroviral drugs that are needed to treat the AIDS epidemic in that country. It is a brilliant public-private partnership between a multinational company and a developing country.
	Surely, we can investigate the potential for such initiatives in all sorts of aspects of development. Multinational companies have huge budgets that are bigger than those of many countries. They have expertise in management that can counteract the lack of capacity in developing countries about which we are always hearing. They are also now accepting the need for far more transparency, which would counteract the corruption that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) mentioned, which so often destroys developing countries. Will the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to encourage those very welcome initiatives?

Nick Palmer: The hon. Lady appears to be nearing the end of her speech. Will she be returning to the question whether her party would abolish the national veto on CAP reform?

Jenny Tonge: I repeat that we have called for the reform of the common agricultural policy. I enlarged a little on that issue and I think that the hon. Gentleman should wait until we have debates specifically about the policy, not least so that we can learn what his party and the Opposition will do about it. We do not deny that it is a difficult problem, but it has to be resolved.
	One of the best initiatives in recent years, which we must not forget, is the fair trade movement, which started out in the form of fair trade goods in the Oxfam shops and a few bags of coffee here and there, but is now mushrooming into a very interesting development. What do the Government think about the fair trade initiative? Why cannot they take it up and support it much more nationally?
	My party acknowledges the progress that the Government have made on debt relief and on increasing the percentage of gross national product that is used for development aid, although the inclusion of debt relief in that figure means that the increase is not as large as it may seem. We acknowledge the Cotonou and anything-but-arms agreements and the recognition that public services, including health, education and water services, should be excluded from the general agreement on trade in services. I use the phrase should be, as we are told that countries are not being forced to open those markets to external competition unless they wish to do so. We welcome that, but I have some reservations, as I am told that things are not as they seem. I hope that the Minister will address that issue.
	Of the least-developed countries, 100 per cent. have had their telecommunications sector requested by the private sector, 24 per cent. have had their environmental sector requested, 69 per cent. have had their financial services sector requested, 59 per cent. have had their transport sector requested, and 3 per cent. have had their energy sector requested. Seventy-two of 109 countries were requested control over water for human use and waste water management. Those are all essential services. In some countries, the relevant sector was effectively controlled by public services and there had been substantial public opposition to privatisation.
	We need to know from the Minister just what is the position on public services and the general agreement on trade in services. Liberal Democrat Members want faster progress on trade. By the time of the next conference in Cancun we must have liberalised our markets to allow access to exporters from developing countries. We must radically reform the CAP. We must lift TRIPStrade-related aspects of intellectual property rightsrestrictions on generic drugs.
	I have made only three main points, but they are vital. The EU and the USA are running out of time before the Cancun summit to get moving on the issue of subsidies generally. That must be addressed beforehand. If the Doha development round collapses, it will be our fault for not putting more pressure on the USA and the EU. New issues must not be addressed until those main problems are solved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said.
	Please let us not have this debate again next year with no progress having been made. Let us get on with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that the eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches begins now. With a fair wind and co-operation, it should be possible for all those seeking to catch my eye to do so.

Tom Clarke: The Prime Minister is on record as saying that the biggest thing happening in the next six months is world trade. Therefore, in my necessarily brief speech, in the presence of my distinguished colleagues on the Front Bench, I shall seek to influence a process that has the opportunity of addressing, in the most effective way, the plight of poverty, which afflicts millions of people around the world; to do otherwise would be an irrelevant indulgence.
	We inhabit a world that has brought great benefits to the people of our nation and to those of other western European countries, as well as America. However, many of my constituents and local organisations are, I am pleased to say, acutely aware of the consequences of free trade and the impediments, barriers and hurdles to fair trade.
	This is not an anti-trade debate, but one that asserts that our trading affairs can be organised so that the benefits go to the many, not to the few, and so that social justice and enlightened self-interest can go hand in hand. I refuse to believe that it is beyond the wit of modern society to protect, and even to improve, the environment that we inherited, underpinned by more equal trading. I am greatly encouraged by the work of the Trade Justice Movement, including aid agencies such as the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Oxfam, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, Christian Aid and many others, all of which will campaign in every constituency in Britain over the next few days.
	I welcome this opportunity to contribute because, like so many other hon. Members, I have visited many countries that suffer immense and absolute poverty. Recently, I was in Cameroon, where I met the Minister of Finance, who I think at one point was the ambassador to South Africa. He cited the tremendous problem of falling commodity prices, coupled with his country's attempt to try to compete with subsidised goods, which he regarded as completely impossible. I was also in Rwanda, and following the terrible genocideand now, happily, the reconciliationit was a privilege to see Tutsi and Hutu children playing together, but despite the merits of the country's agricultural potential it was extremely disappointing to know that they are not dealing internationally with fair trade.
	Recently, I was in Angola, to which reference was made. The country is extremely rich in diamonds and in oil. It is not the fault of the British Government that those resources are not being made available to the people, or that, appallingly, one third of Angolan children die before the age of five.
	I have visited some of the shantytowns in Peru, where the young people said the same as my young constituents: they were looking for job opportunities. [Interruption.] They did not find that amusing. Given the lecture we had from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), I am somewhat puzzled by her response to what has just been said.
	The poverty that we are facing is identifiable. Half the world's people live on less than $2 a day; a billion people are hungry every night; 1.5 billion people never have any clean water; 130 million children never go to school; and 10 million children die every year of preventable childhood diseases, even though, overall, life expectancy is up and infant mortality down.
	Last year, Professor Keith Popple of the Southampton institute said that
	the combined wealth of the worlds three richest men is more than the combined wealth of the world's 48 poorest nations.
	No wonder CAFOD says:
	Without trade that works for the poor, without an end to the grotesque subsidies and trade barriers that protect producers in the richest countries of the world, all that we have worked for in Jubilee 2000 will be put at risk. Developing countries are not asking for a handout. They want and deserve justice.

Andy Reed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we maintain the link between debt relief, our aid programme and trade, and that none should be taken in isolation? For example, the collapse in commodity prices, to which he has referred, has led to the HIPC initiative falling into some disarray. Is it not vital that we do not lose the focus on the combination of trade, aid and debt relief, with all being equal in importance?

Tom Clarke: I agree absolutely and I am delighted that the Trade Justice Movement also agrees, not least because, rightly, it has been campaigningand the Government have respondedon issues such as debt, trade, HIPC and the other matters that my hon. Friend rightly raised.
	Oxfam research showed that the falling price of coffee in Kenya forced parents to take their children out of school because they could no longer afford the fees. The price fall meant that parents' income more than halved in the space of two years.
	Yesterday's The Guardian contained an extremely telling article, which I commend to my friends in the Trade Justice Movement, by George Monbiot[Interruption.] I see that it appeals also to the hon. Member for Meriden. George Monbiot said that he had changed his mind on some of the essential issuesfor example, on the role of the World Trade Organisation. I welcome that change of mind. He made it clear that whereas he had argued that our aim should be to remove the influence of the WTO, he now realised that the initiative should be transformed. In telling words, he said:
	The only thing worse than a world with the wrong international trade rules is a world with no trade rules at all.
	The challenge to this Parliament, the European Union, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation is to put in place a set of rules banishing free trade and replacing it with a genuine level playing field and fair trade. The Cancun conference in September is the next road stop on this almost endless journey, and we are watching all the developments very closely indeed.
	My last words are those that have been poignantly expressed by the Trade Justice Movement:
	Trade should be the means by which poor people can lift themselves out of poverty, not the prison that steals their future.

Tony Baldry: The prophet Micah said:
	He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
	We all have an inherent concept of what justice is, and this debate is about trade justice. When the Prime Minister of Ethiopia gave evidence to the Select Committee on International Development, he said that there was a danger that Africa could become the continental ghetto of a globalised world. He said:
	Unless Africa develops, it will spawn all sorts of criminal groups en masse, including drug cartels and terrorists, which will haunt all of us. Unless Africa develops, people will flee not in their thousands but, perhaps, in their tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands, and that will haunt all of us. Unless Africa develops, there will be environmental devastation in the continent and the rest of the world. Unless Africa develops, a large part of humanity will be, in effect, excluded from the global cake and the global cake will be smaller for all of us. Developed countries have, therefore, a stake in Africa's development. It is in their enlightened self-interest to help Africa develop.
	Of course, we could replace the word Africa with the names of many of the developing countries.
	Our world community is interdependent, and we cannot simply have trade rules that are entirely give and take, whereby we ask the developing countries to gain concessions while they keep having to give more. Prime Minister Meles put it to the Committee that
	international trade negotiations are based on bargaining and give and take. We know that whatever the rhetoric might be, those with the bigger bargaining power get what affects their interest more. That is the reality. The poor countries, particularly those in Africa, because their share in global trade is insignificant, have no significant bargaining power. They cannot engage in meaningful give and take.
	Many non-governmental organisations gave evidence to the Select Committee. Duncan Green of CAFOD spoke of
	extracting as much as you can get and giving as little as you can. That is not even the free market but a straightforward mercantilist approach to negotiation.
	At Cancun, we shall all have to stand back and consider what is in the best interest not of each country but of the global community as a whole. Unless we in the developed world are prepared to make concessions on agricultural support and trade-related aspects of intellectual property rightsTRIPSwe can forget about getting the general agreement on trade in services or new issues on to the agenda, because there will be absolutely no interest in the developing world in making any concessions on GATS or new issues. Sadly, we have made almost no progress on agricultural support or TRIPS since the end of 2002.
	The International Development Committee has been undertaking an inquiry into the matter, and we went to see Commissioner Fischler. It was a pretty depressing meeting, as I think the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who was also present, will confirm. We got there, sat down, asked the commissioner some questions, and he said, in terms, Frankly, it is not our responsibility. It is not our fault. The EU is doing everything that we need to do. He said:
	We know that our US friends are asking for more market access, but this more market access is at the cost of developing countries . . . Our agricultural support, on export subsidies, compared with the value of the export, is more or less insignificant . . . We reduce the more trade-distorting elements and partly increase those elements which are not trade distorting. Unfortunately, our American friends have done the opposite, especially with their last Farm Bill. This is where we now have a rather difficult discussion.
	In effect, Fischler was saying, There is nothing for us to do. We then went to Washington to meet representatives of the United States Department of Agriculture. They said, It is not us, it is you, the European Union, who have got to shift.
	Some real political effort needs to be made if we are to achieve a breakthrough. Understandably, that will require genuine political commitment. The attention of many political leaders, including our Prime Minister and President Bush, has understandably been distracted by Iraq and other topics. If I have a criticism and concern, it is that, if any progress is to be made in Cancun, it will require more than an interdepartmental Cabinet sub-committee and the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, for International Development, and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs getting their act together. In terms of agricultural subsidy, some serious political head-banging and sorting out will be required in the EU and the United States. It is appalling to note that, even if we have won any influence in the United States, we have yet to sort out TRIPS.
	In his recent statement on the G8 summit, the Prime Minister said:
	We all agreed that a successful outcome to the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting . . . in September and the successful completion of the development round by 2005 are of central importance. The wealthy nations of the world simply cannot any longer ask the developing world to stand on its own two feet but shut out the very access to our markets that is necessary for it to do so. Reform of the European common agricultural policy will be vital in that regard.[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 405, c. 158.]
	We would all agree with that. Then, almost a week later, the Prime Minister reported back from the European Council in Thessalonika. Those of us who have been around long enough understood the form of words that were used at the Dispatch Box. In the light of the wordplay between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, it was clear that, while in Thessalonika, the Prime Minister had not invested any political capital in pushing for reform of the common agricultural policy.
	We on the Conservative Benches are far more consensual and kind to the Prime Minister than some of the political sketch writers. In the following day's edition of The Independent, Simon Carr said that the Prime Minister proved that
	he is truly bilingual by speaking with forked tongue . . .
	The truth also gets lost in the technical forest. Was it good that common agricultural policy . . . reform was left with the Agricultural Council . . .?
	Bearing in mind the proposals will have to go to the Council of Ministers in the end, will the cause of CAP reform be helped or hindered by its current forum of discussion?
	Your answer will determine how many peasants starve to death in various country-wide death camps in the Third World. We don't know the answer, we can't know, and given that we have a generalised interest in Third World peasants not starving to death, we don't care. If we did care, Mr Blair would care. If Mr Blair cared, he'd have done something about it years ago.
	The real concern is that Ministers have to convince this House and the country that between now and Cancun the Government and the Prime Minister will invest some real political time and effort in talking to President Bush, and in making progress on agricultural reform and TRIPS. If they do not, we will make no progress on the WTO agenda. We do not doubt the good will and commitment of Ministers

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time. I call Ann McKechin.

Ann McKechin: I welcome today's debate on a subject that, sadly, receives very little time in this Chamber; indeed, it would largely be ignored without the tremendous effort of the many people throughout the United Kingdom who support the Trade Justice Movement. Sadly, despite the urgent and pressing need for widespread reform of our own trading policies and a truly development-led settlement, the prospects for a meaningful agreement are currently bleak.
	In February, I had the pleasure of being part of the British Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to the World Trade Organisation parliamentary conference in Geneva. For me, that event symbolised a number of the issues that are blocking real progress. Unfortunately, the United States has withdrawn its membership of the IPU and accordingly did not participate. The US Government have a political philosophy that is generally suspicious of multilateral agreements. They have placed increasing emphasis on securing bilateral agreements where it is clear that they will always hold the upper hand. If the current talks fail, the route back to bilateral negotiations is already being marked out.
	Many EU member states appeared defensive about their own policies. In fact, some argued bare-faced that, because of their own economic problems, the developing world would have to wait before the EU could make further concessions on CAP. That is not very comforting for a country the majority of whose population is living on less than a dollar a day. The developing nations were exasperated and hostile about the lack of progress, and the WTO gave every impression of being completely uninterested in engaging in any form of parliamentary scrutiny or accepting criticism for the growing fault lines among member states.
	How can we make real progress? As the Minister confirmed this afternoon, it is certainly not in the interest of developing countries to return to a system of bilateral trade agreements in which they will always be the junior player. Under that system, the hope of comprehensive reform of either the CAP or US subsidies will rapidly vanish. A multilateral system should offer the best opportunities for change and development, but, rather than every player hanging on to their vested interests, it needs to operate on a basis of trust and with political will to reach agreed goals.
	The current round of negotiations has been termed a development round, but there is no consensus on how development is defined, or on the process by which the details of that hugely complex group of negotiations is supposed to fit round it. Unlike the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation has not incorporated the UN millennium development goals as integral to its own doctrines. If development is truly the ultimate objective, rather than just an add-on benefit of reducing trade barriers, the WTO needs to consider a much more radical reform of its own agenda.
	The test for a rule or proposal to be considered by the WTO should not be whether it is trade-distorting, but whether it is development-distorting. Many less developed countries quite rightly feel that they have been let down badly in previous trade deals. While they agreed to open their doors to our goods and suffered from our subsidised dumping, the richer nations were largely shielded and successfully clung on to their trade barriers. At the same time, the world prices of many basic trade commodities, such as coffee or bananas, have slumped, with disastrous effects on the economies of poor countries. The developing countries are understandably much more reluctant to make any further concessions unless they can achieve significant concessions from the west this time.
	There is, frankly, an increasing difficulty in achieving trade-offs in all sectors, and we need to consider whether the present round of negotiations should be the last permanent round, followed by a period of review and consolidation. As yet, there is no formal requirement for the WTO to review its own policies to determine which ones contribute and which detract from the goal of development. Currently, once commitments are made, it is virtually impossible to withdraw from them, however injurious they are to a nation's economic development, without severe penalty.
	Given the fractious atmosphere in which the current negotiations have been conducted, there is also a need to examine the scope and mandate of the WTO. There are key world trade issuesincluding, as I said earlier, primary commodity marketsthat the WTO is not seriously concerned about. On the other hand, the WTO has become involved in domestic policy issues, such as intellectual property laws, domestic investment and subsidy policies.
	The WTO has evolved trade principles such as non-discrimination, most favoured nation and national treatment, which were correctly derived in the context of trade in goods, but there is no clear evidence or political consensus that the application of those same principles to areas other than trade will lead to positive development outcomes. Just about every developed country, including our own, expanded initially on the basis of special treatment for its own industries and Government procurement. The benefits of investment and procurement liberalisation are not likely to outweigh the disadvantages unless there is sufficient strength within the domestic economy itself and sufficient capacity to regulate foreign investment and adequately to enforce that regulation.
	Liberalisation, as the Government to some extent acknowledge, should not be pursued automatically as an end in itself. What is much more important is the quality, timing, sequencing and scope of liberalisation, and how the process is accompanied by other factors. Only last week, African Trade Ministers, meeting in Mauritius, issued a statement that referred to
	the complexity and importance of the Singapore issues.
	It also said that the Ministers
	note that WTO members do not have a common understanding on how these issues should be dealt with procedurally or substantively. Taking into account the potential serious implications of these issues to our economies, we call for the process of clarification to continue.
	Those are clearly very different views from those held by our own Government and other western countries, but I hope that, instead of forcing that part of the agenda forward now as part of a settlement this year, we will engage with the concerns of the developing world and consider a more appropriate mechanism to deal with those matters in a systematic manner.
	I know that our Government, who have taken the lead in so many development matters, will fight hard for a successful outcome at Cancun later this year and I urge them to focus their negotiating priorities on agricultural and non-food tariffs and on reaching agreement on the supply of vital drugs for AIDS, TB and malaria so that we can achieve a better world for future generations.

Alistair Burt: I warmly welcome this debate, and in particular the introduction by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). She has made a significant contribution to her brief and we appreciate the way in which she moved the motion today. I especially commend my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor on their work in establishing the advocacy fund. In an atmosphere that can become highly charged, those in developing countries need their own voice. They do not always speak with the same voice, and those organisations that purport to speak for them do not always necessarily say what those in developing countries would wish to say. Sometimes, developing countries have different needs and sometimes they say things that we would not expect them to say, but all their voices are authentic and they deserve to be heard. The advocacy fund will make a significant contribution to that.
	I wish to acknowledge the influence of outside bodies on our debate today. Most of us in political parties have bemoaned the fact in recent years that as membership of political parties has fallen, membership of single-interest pressure groups has gone up. Today is a perfect example of why that may be the case. Those in the Trade Justice Movement and the Jubilee Debt Campaign have brought the matter into the public arena with a vigour and determination that make us all think. The debt and fair trade issues that they have raised are familiar to almost all of those who will take part in this debate, but the campaigners have prosecuted those issues with a fervour that has changed the political agenda. The culmination of that in the lobby this weekend will be important to all of us. Most of us will have a chance to speak to the campaigners and I commend my local groups in Sharnbrook and Sandy on the contribution that they have made. I have been in close contact with them during the International Development Committee's current inquiry into fair trade. I wish that same energy could be incorporated into political parties, because we would all benefit if some of those who spent their time on single-issue pressure groups joined us. They might then appreciate the difficult compromises that we have to make on these matters, because they are not all capable of simple solutions.
	I also wish to acknowledge the contribution that the Churches have made to the issue. For a long time, those driven by the compassion of Jesus Christ have given their careers and development expertise to developing countries. They have joined those of all faiths and none in that work, and we pay tribute to them. On the back of that work, we have seen a growing disquiet in the Christian community at what has emerged. Our concept of neighbour has widened as the world has grown smaller, and it is in trade justice that the two come together. In the same way that environmentalists tell us that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Africa can change the climate of a continent half a world away, so we know that there is a direct relationship between those who struggle to escape disease and poverty in one place and ourselves in another. One does not have to believe that there is an absolutely direct link between poverty and terrorism to recognise that those who seek to prey on the vulnerabilities of others find plenty of material in countries where the agony is greatest and the chance of escape most remote.

Peter Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our recent visit to South Africa and the black township outside Capetown underlines how massive the problems are and how important today's debate is?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman is right. We visited Khayeletsia, a community that did not exist in 1985, but in which 1.2 million people now live in shanty conditions. The South African Government are doing their best to cope with those conditions and to make changes, but the scale of the povertywhich we see only from time to time, when we visitis very great. If it were suffered by our constituents, whose voices we hear every day, the patience and equanimity with which we debate these matters in this place would disappear. I have travelled to South Africa several times with the hon. GentlemanI want to call him my hon. Friendand he makes his point very well.
	There is an imperative on us to translate compassion into something rather different. As the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) said, we know that we are not responsible for everything. The causes of world poverty are complex and the ways to escape from it are even more complex, but there are things that we can do. What would the people who live in the remote parts of the world that we visit make of what we say in this debate and, more crucially, of what we are going to do?
	If agriculture is the key to releasing the poverty-stricken world into better conditions, we must look aghast at the state of negotiations under the Doha agenda. The declared aim was that those negotiations would be a development round, and nations mouthed their support for development for the poorest nations, but at the same time big decisions were being made in capital cities that went directly against the spirit of the Doha agenda.
	When the US passed its Farm Act 2002, it changed its financial support for agriculture. According to a document from the House of Commons Library, the Act
	is expected to increase spending on US farm support by an additional 70 per cent. or $73 billion over the next ten years.
	What could $73 billion achieve if it were spread around the world, in some of the places that we have visited and situations that we have encountered?

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend accept also that the direct effect of support for the US cotton industry, for example, negates every penny of aid that the US gives to many African countries, because they are unable to sell their products to the rest of the world?

Alistair Burt: It is a topsy-turvy world. We seem to be stuck with what people in the medical profession might term a psychotic condition. We can see what needs to be done, but we find that we are unable to do anything about it. That is true at Government level, and among people whom we know well and with whom we are in contact all the time. We can see the problem, but do we have the will to solve it?
	At the same time as the 2002 Act was being passed in the US, something similar was happening in the EU. Oxfam reports that, at the Brussels summit of October 2002, Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Schrder
	brokered a deal to maintain a ceiling on agricultural spending until 2013. The deal in effect blocks the prospect of introducing any substantive change in the Common Agricultural Policy . . . until 2006, and will delay any meaningful concessions until at least 2012. Without radical reform of the CAP in the immediate term, the EU will not be able to go that . . . 'extra mile'. The poorest countries in the world cannot afford to wait until the next decade for the richest to reform their agricultural regimes.
	And so say all of us.
	This has been a brief but excellent debate in terms of the contributions made by colleagues on a vital subject that has risen up the agenda. However, it is hard to escape the sense that we have all been here before. If we faced poverty, hunger, disease, HIV and AIDS on an African scale and if we faced the barriers to trade that might make some difference to those conditions, would weas I said to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)conduct our debate with such patience and equanimity? Would the capital cities of Washington, Brussels and London be as reasonable in dealing with each other and would they take so much time breaking through a myriad of negotiations before something was done?
	In this Chamber, our compassion may be deep but our collective voices, mine included, will count for little unless we see some progress. The world is changing; the inequalities of history are, at last, at our own door. Let the consensus in the House and in the debate come through in the decisions to which we contribute, either directly, through the EU, or through our friends in the United States. In the developing countries that most of us will visit from time, people are listening and they deserve no less than that we translate our voices into action.

John Battle: I welcome the title of the debate; it is fresh and new. It is not often that a title of a debate in the House is Fair Trade. For hundreds of years, we have constantly talked about free trade. The ultimate free traders were the Liberals, when they were in powerhundreds of years ago. For nearly 20 years, we heard nothing but free trade from the neo-Conservatives, the new right. I welcome the fact that we are all fair traders now and that we are campaigning for managed trade. We should be asking: how is trade to be managed and who manages it? If we can find consensus on that in this place, the debate will have moved on significantly and in a helpful way for the 21st century.
	When I first worked on development in the 1970s, someone sent me a cartoon. It showed a man holding a teaspoon to a peasant's mouth. On the teaspoon was the word Aid. The man's other arm was around the peasant's throat, in a stranglehold grip. Emblazoned on his arm was the word Trade. Sadly, nearly 30 years later, we have hardly moved on enough to realise that the grip on the windpipe is the trade processes that undermine any increases in the aid budget. That Mexican cartoon rings just as true today.
	The campaign for increased overseas aid has taken on a new dimension. It has shifted so that it includes a focus on the unfair workings of the trade system. The Trade Justice Movement is to be congratulated on achieving that nationally; it includes many bodies, non-governmental organisations and faith communities, such as CAFOD, Oxfam, the World Development Movement, Christian Aid or the Save the Children Fund. They are all to be congratulated on shifting the focus and on getting across the message that trade relations are as crucial to long-term sustainable development as any aid. There is no trade justice in a world where 800 million go hungry. The trade system is not delivering for the poor. The trade system is unfair; it is weighted in favour of the rich countries and its massive in-built global imbalance is likely to continue unless action is taken to give the poor a break into the system.
	It is to the credit of the Government that they recognised the need to tackle unfair trade. In 2001, they published a helpful pamphlet, Trade matters, eliminating world poverty, which acknowledges that trade can be a force for development, but only if it is fair and works for the whole world, not just for rich countries andI would addmultinational companies. Central to the Government's development policy is a commitment to the internationally agreed target to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015.
	Yes, the Government also have positive targets on basic health care provision and universal access to primary education. Yes, there has been some progress. Yes, there has been a welcome increase in the aid budget, ending a decade of cuts imposed by the Opposition when they were in Government. However, any current analysis of progress towards the millennium development goals shows that, on current trends, there is hardly a cat-in-hell's chance of halving poverty by 2050, never mind by 2015, unless there are radical changes in the trading system and in debt as well.
	Tragically, many poor sub-Saharan countries are struggling their way up an overwhelmingly down-moving escalator. The situation is getting worse for most sub-Saharan countries. Take healthsome 7 million people still die every year from preventable diseases. Take educationmore than 115 million children do not go to school, and 88 countries are nowhere near achieving the targets in education, to give but two examples. So without radical changes in the unfair trade balance, real and welcome increases in the aid budget will make hardly any impact on development.
	The preparations for the WTO round in Cancun in Septemberlabelled the development roundhave hardly got anywhere so far. They have not heralded much progress. Discussions on agricultural trade reforma basic building block for any fair trade systemare well behind schedule. There are no signs of progress in dismantling the massive subsidies, which many other hon. Members have mentioned, that go to American and European agricultural production. The American Farm Bill and the European Union common agricultural policy subsidies are being reinforced and strengthened, rather than being dismantled.
	Yes, to our credit, the Government are pressing for genuine CAP reform, dismantling those subsidies that keep developing countries' products out of Europe. In practice, those subsidies are generating a huge system of agricultural dumping. That dumping is occasionally dressed up under the heading of food aid or other aid, but it ensures that agriculture in poor countries has no real chance of getting off the ground. In effect, it is being killed off by dumping. EU Tomato paste is sold cheaply in Ghana and subsidised EU dried milk powder is destroying the Jamaican Dairy Farmers Federation, to give two practical examples.
	While we press for CAP reform, let us not press on developing countries methods of change that we have not adopted in the past. Let us not say, Do as we say, but not as we did. Let us not say, You liberalise, while we continue to subsidise. I shall give a quotation from the US-based National Law Centre for Inter-American Free Trade:
	The historical record in the industrialised countries which began as developing countries demonstrates that intellectual property protection has been one of the most powerful instruments for economic development, export growth and the diffusion of new technologies.
	That is classic, so let us not ask developing countries to move faster than they can. They need managed trade, but in the context of what they can achieve; otherwise, in the words of one great writer on these matters, we are simply kicking away the ladder and leaving developing countries with no chance at all.
	Finally, I recommend the Chancellor's International Finance Facility. That is the way to get investment into the developing countries quickly, effectively and for the longer term, rather than by being jumped into a new framework. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to an appropriate framework, but let us take up the Chancellor's proposal on the international finance facility as one means to put in more investment quickly. Perhaps the WTO could take a leaf out of this debate. I close with this remark: as well as adopting the millennium development goalsgetting into line on development would cost the WTO nothingwhy does it not change its name? Instead of being the World Trade Organisation, why does it not call itself the fair trade organisation? In the meantime, we have much work to do

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Andrew Rosindell: The issue of trade justice is of immense interest to the constituents of all Members, and this weekend I will participate in local events in my constituency of Romford. That is demonstrated by the fact that our mailbags have been full of letters and post cards in the last few weeks highlighting the issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on ensuring that this important topic is debated on the Floor of the House today.
	The aims of the Trade Justice Movement of eradicating world poverty, protecting the environment and assisting developing economies in their development are noble ones, which have the support of most if not all Members of the House. It is how that can be achieved, however, which is most important, and that is something that the trade justice campaign must review. The path from third world economy to first world economy must not involve endless intervention, regulation and international rulings. Those may provide short-term fixes but could also lead to dependency and the creation of false, unsustainable markets in the long term.
	The first of the main demands by the Trade Justice Movement, as found in its literature, reads:
	stop forcing poor countries to open their markets.
	While I acknowledge the worth of its work, I must disagree with it on certain things, and that particular point is pure fantasy. All that it will achieve is the creation of mini fortress economies, and worse still, it presumes that developing economies do not want to trade internationally. I believe that they do, and that they need to do so. The real world does not work like that. Treating developing economies as if they are somehow exceptions to the rule will help no one.

Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Rosindell: In a moment.
	Surely the best way forward would be to implement strategies that leave poorer economies free to develop in the most appropriate manner, given their individual nature, resources and circumstances. Countries must be left free of interference and free from those who would rather spoon-feed developing economies than prepare them for true international competition.
	The next trade justice aim is to regulate big business, which is the kind of typically socialistic reaction that presumes that politicians and officials know best. Even this Government have ditched that outdated view. If we regulate, we stifle and, in turn, will stunt growth. That is simple economics. Big business will not respond to new regulation in the manner anticipated by the anti-globalisation movement.

Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Rosindell: In a moment.
	It will not suddenly be a case of multinationals giving the third world a big hug and paying double for the produce. Regulations and barriers in the market drag everyone down. In the long term, that will include third world producers.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of doing a gross injustice to the Trade Justice Movement in confusing it with the anti-globalisation campaigners. One of the things that he must recognise is that the Trade Justice Movement has accepted, and welcomes the fact, that there should be international laws and regulations on trade, and wants to work within the WTO, but requests simply that individual countries, as he has said, should be free of interference and should be able to join in world trade as they think is best for their economies. Surely, if we are to look after the poorest people in the world, that is only right and proper.

Andrew Rosindell: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, which is why I have not said that I oppose what the Trade Justice Movement is trying to do. I simply said that it should review some of the statements it has issued, which give out the wrong signals.

John Gummer: When my hon. Friend comes to talk about multinational companies, however, is it not reasonable to insist that international organisations have the same attitude, for example, to health and safety in Ghana as they do in the United States? Is it not reasonable to insist that such companies should do that?

Andrew Rosindell: It is all a question of balance. Of course, there are examples in which certain rules need to be introduced. No one is suggesting that we should live in a free-for-all world. Trade provides wealth and jobs and gives people opportunities, so we should focus on trade. We should not only impose rules and regulations, because that does not work.
	Let me give a few examples of what happens in the real world. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank estimate that because of restrictions on the trading of textiles and clothing, 20 million potential jobs have not been created. Regulation will not solve that. According to Oxfam, import tariffs cost developing countries about $43 billion a year, and the total cost of all forms of trade barriers rises to more than $100 billion, which is more than double the total amount of development assistance. Again, how will regulation solve that? The European Union common agricultural policy and the recent US Farm Bill force farmers in poor economies to compete against massively subsidised farmers in developed markets. No regulation can solve that, only the liberalisation of trade. I hope that hon. Members will accept that those facts represent the real injustices.
	I want a system that rewards success and allows businesses to flourish wherever they are because that leads to the eradication of poverty. That would require the scrapping of subsidies, the abolition of barriers and, hopefully, the slashing of tariffs. The system would embrace free markets and ditch protectionism.
	Proof of the success of that lies in countries such as China where the number of rural poor declined from 250 million in 1978 to 34 million in 1999, largely as a result of expanding trade. Similarly, the level of absolute poverty in Vietnam has been cut by half in 10 years. In India, trade policy reform brought about economic growth that led to a reduction of between 5 and 10 per cent. in national poverty rates.
	Furthermore, the Centre for International Economic Studies says that if developed countries fully liberalised barriers to imports, such action would generate gains of more than $600 million for Indonesia, more than $2 billion for sub-Saharan Africa, more than $3 billion for India, China and Brazil and more than $14 billion for Latin America.
	I urge the Government to use up and coming trade rounds to implement market liberalisation and to help developing economies to help themselves. People in developing countries should be treated as people, not charity cases. Above all, developing countries should be given a truly fair deal.

Sandra Osborne: If it is not a contradiction in terms, we have had an enjoyable debate, despite its serious topic. We have heard interesting contributions and although it is slightly unfortunate that the consensus has been broken by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), the debate has been welcome.
	I welcome the Minister of State's commitment that prioritisation will be given at Cancun to reduce agricultural support for rich countries and to ensure that the world's poorest countries have access to affordable medicines. The Opposition called the debateI congratulate them on thatat least in part because the Trade Justice Movement's campaign will happen this weekend. I want to raise several of its fears and concerns, especially about decision-making processes in the World Trade Organisation, as I mentioned in my intervention.
	I have often heard Ministers say that one of the advantages of the WTO is that decisions are made by consensusthe Minister of State repeated that earlier. We all know that there are official decision-making processes but that outside that pressure may be brought to bear that does not necessarily reflect a consensual approachthe word blackmail springs to mind, if that is not too strong a word. I appreciate that that is a cynical view but it is widely held, especially among my constituents who are involved in the Trade Justice Movement. I shall raise several issues that they highlighted.
	The Minister needs to tackle the issues head on so that we can address our constituents' concerns when we meet them this weekend. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has acknowledged the deep mistrust felt by developing countries, which believe that the richer nations are once again trying to dictate the terms of economic engagement. However, we have also been told that we began to put all that behind us at Doha and we now have a more transparent process of negotiation. A trade round was launched which, for the first time, put development at the heart of the negotiations.
	I applaud the Secretary of State's undertaking not to accept or agree to any trade proposal that would damage the prospects of developing countries trading themselves out of poverty, but, in many ways, it is those countries that she will have to convince. In spite of much talk of consensus, which I would support if it were genuine, severe misgivings have been expressed by many developing countries about expanding the WTO agenda to include what are known as the new issues, not least because, as the Minister of State admitted, little progress has been made on agricultural reform and health care. Most hon. Members have agreed that those should be the priority at Cancun.
	I want to specify instances in which dissent has been voiced to the WTO. I know that the Minister will be aware of that dissent, which contradicts the seemingly consensual approach and is cause for concern. In May 2001, a report of the meeting of the G15 summit level group, which now consists of 19 countries, stated:
	The WTO should focus on accomplishing its current work programme rather than entertaining new issues which will create additional obligations on developing countries.
	In August 2001, the least developed countries submitted a paper to the WTO asking for the study process to continue. They were not ready to move on to full-scale negotiations on investment, but pressure was brought to bear by the EU to do just that. In September 2001, the Africa group of WTO members released a communiqu stating:
	The Singapore issues
	are
	not within WTO competence in developing multilateral rules,
	and that
	Members are not convinced that negotiation in these areas would deliver benefits to African countries . . . These issues would overload the WTO agenda.
	To return to Doha, 29 developing countries explicitly mentioned the new issues in their statements. Some 19 of those opposed their inclusion in the Doha agenda. Only twothe Republic of Korea and Venezuelaspoke in favour. The rest did not express a clear view. That opposition was ignored as the EU pushed ahead with its agenda. So what happened to consensual decision making?
	Developing countries continued to express concern as recently as April 2003 at the WTO trade negotiations committee in Geneva when the Africa group and the least developed countries reaffirmed their opposition. The Government know of those concerns, but I have highlighted them because I do not want to tell my constituents not to worry about the developing countries having their place at the negotiating table, where consensus prevails, if that is a cruel deception. I look forward to my hon. Friend's comments on that.
	Like the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), I, too, should like the Minister to clarify the position on the general agreement on trade in services. Fears have been expressed that GATS poses a threat to UK public services. The Government's consultation document states that most WTO members are content and that none is challenging the accepted interpretations of article 1.3that public services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority are excluded from GATS. But fears are still being expressed.
	I have an active local branch of the World Development Movement. I congratulate it on its good work and look forward to meeting it this weekend. Only last week, however, I attended a local gala where the WDM had a stall. It was festooned with posters saying, A threat to UK public services by GATS. So if an agreement has been made that poses no threat, someone, somewhere is telling lies. I seek clarification on that so that we can reassure our constituents at the weekend.

Simon Thomas: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I am grateful to the official Opposition for choosing fair trade as a subject for debate, and should like to welcome the new team at the Department. However, I, too, am disappointed that the Minister dealing with these issues is not a member of the Cabinet. There is a great deal of interest in these matters in my constituency, especially among the churches and chapels, which have been driving the agenda forward. It is great to have the opportunity to talk in the House about issues that, unusually, our constituents know more about and are better briefed on than us.
	International trade is a bit like a game of Monopoly, except that the developing countries are joining the game halfway through. The developed countries have already bought Bond street, the dice are loaded, and we are asking the developing countries to make do with Old Kent road. Occasionally, they will get out of jail free and will get 200 from the community chest, but they want to play the game by the same rules as us and have the same opportunity to benefit. Some of the scepticism about what will be achieved by the WTO in Cancun derives from the fact that the development round that dates back to Doha and has not been successful. Developing countries wanted it to succeed so that their faith in the WTO would be restored. The Trade Justice Movement, to be fair, has been trying to drive the public agenda forward. When we look at TRIPStrade-related aspects of intellectual property rightsand the debates on agriculture and special and differential treatment, we notice some sticking points that have held back progress at the WTO.
	The Department wrote a joint letter with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to all MPs before our debate about the trade justice lobby and said that the delay in agreeing a solution on TRIPS was regrettable. However, given the AIDS crisis in southern Africa, it is more than regrettableit is disastrous. The key to helping those countries is in the hands of the developed countries at the WTO, and the problem must be sorted out before Cancun. Opposition, whether from the United States, the pharmaceutical companies or the multi-nationals must be swept aside, as lives are at stake, and nothing is more important than that. Everything else takes second place.
	Something else that is holding things back is the question of negotiating capacity. I am grateful to the official Opposition for including in the motion the proposal that there should be more capacity-building within developing countries. I accept what the Minister said, and the Government are to be congratulated on what they have done in the countries themselves. However, especially given the aim of Geneva negotiations, there is a little bit of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. There is no point in helping developing countries with their claims and difficulties with agreements if they cannot be empowered to get the agreements right in the first place.
	Special and differential treatment must be enhanced further, as it is an acknowledgement by the WTO that developing countries cannot be treated in the same ways as the rich countries. That difference is at the heart of the Trade Justice Movement. We may disagree about the methods needed to achieve fair trade, but the development movement believes that there is a material difference between developed countries and developing countries in their ability to deal with these matters and their starting point for a fair trade agreement. We should recognise that difference in international and multilateral agreements. That is what special and differential treatment means, and it should be strengthened. At Doha, it was agreed that special and differential treatment provisions should be strengthened to make them
	more precise, effective and operational.
	In response, the developing countries themselves introduced 85 proposals to make those provisions more precise, effective and operational. The developed countries did not introduce a single proposal along those lines, and the result has been a logjam and no agreement. There must be a significant improvement in that situation.
	That is the context in which we need to look at the new issues, particularly investment. I understand why the Government say that they are important and they need to be on the agenda at Cancun. However, as the proposals introduced by developing countries cannot be resolved in the current round, they will doubtless be sceptical when the developed countries propose to include more issues in a series of negotiations that does not seem to be reaching a conclusion.
	I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposal from the Trade Justice Movement to sort out the remains of the Doha round and agricultural subsidies, restore faith in the WTO and show that it can work for developing countries and for fair trade. The additional issues must be part of the ongoing march of international trade, but at this stage I doubt whether many developing countries are capable of taking on board the new issues, or are satisfied that they are being treated fairly on other issues.
	In an intervention on the Minister, I mentioned GM foods. His replythat countries must decide for themselveswas helpful. The US Government, of course, do not agree and are using the WTO as a mechanism to drive through their corporate interests in GM foods. We in the EU have argued the
	need for a rigorous regulatory framework
	based on environmental, health, animal welfare and ethical grounds. The EU has stated that it
	will always aim at responding to the legitimate interests of its citizens, not to narrow economic interests.
	Developing countries should be able to do the same for their citizens. We should not ask for anything less.
	My final comments are on liberalisation. I do not share the enthusiasm of some hon. Members for it, because of those loaded dice in the game of Monopoly that I described. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned Uganda and Botswana as examples of countries where liberalisation was working. However, Uganda is crippled by a civil war and has diverted 23 per cent. of its expenditure to defence, and in Botswana it is predicted that 31 per cent. of the work force will be lost through AIDS by 2020. Those statistics show that although certain aspects of liberalisation may be working, TRIPS and the WTO need to be adjusted so that those countries can benefit in full.
	Liberalisation brings huge challenges, changes and opportunities, but it can also be part of the problem. All I ask is that it should be applied where countries believe they have the capacity to deal with it. We should respect the sovereignty of those countries and their assessment of how their economies can best meet the needs of the poor. We must ask what such measures do for the poorest in those countries, not for us, the richest in the world.

Colin Challen: Everybody is in favour of fair trade, from the mightiest corporation such as Rio Tinto Zinc, which proclaims:
	We contribute to sustainable development by helping satisfy global and community needs and aspirations, whether economic, social or environmental,
	but which was described in The Guardian only this Monday as being ready to despoil a large tract of Madagascar's last remaining rainforest, a challenge to which the company's spokesperson responded with gusto, saying:
	We will keep going no matter what,
	to the Bush regime, which talks the talk of fair trade, if rather rarely, but walks with a protective ring of steel around its burgeoning economic belly, and the European Union, whose collective fair trade design is pure hypocrisy when one considers its GATS request in the light of its own inability to reform.
	Who is against fair trade? Nobody, of course, but too often that means free trade biased in the developed world's favour. Nobody will own up to it, but there is such a mismatch between rhetoric and reality. Corporations, with their new post-Johannesburg role, are in the game with Government support to take control of resources from which they can turn a handy profit, largely because a fair price will not be paid for those resources. But the issue is not just more access to cheap resources or access to cheap labour.
	The everyday reality of fair trade was put succinctly in the Harvard Business Review of September last year, in an article entitled Serving the World's Poor, Profitably, from which we learned:
	It's . . . incorrect to assume that the poor are too concerned with fulfilling their basic needs to 'waste' money on non-essential goods. In fact, the poor often do buy 'luxury' items. In the Mumbai shantytown of Dharavi, for example, 85 per cent. of households own a television set, 75 per cent. own a pressure cooker and a mixer, 56 per cent. own a gas stove, and 21 per cent. have telephones.
	That's because buying a house in Mumbai, for most people at the bottom of the pyramid, is not a realistic option. Neither is getting access to running water. They accept that reality, and rather than saving for a rainy day, they spend their income on things they can get now that improve the quality of their lives. The world's poor do not have much of an opportunity to save for a rainy day because they are still too busy paying off the enormous debts with which they were encumbered when the west had money to throw at them, and which it will now agree to write off only if those recipient countries submit to the conditionalities of western hegemony, as the Washington consensus is known.
	The European Union, as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry so rightly said in her article in The Guardian on Monday, is one of the worst offenders in making soothing noises about fair trade, because when it gives its cows a greater income than half the world's poor, its soothing noises come across a tad unconvincingly. But it is not just the subsidies and the dumping that should tweak our consciences, it is the lavish demands that the EU is making in this general agreement on trade in services round that should make us hold our heads in despair. Not only do we want to run the services of developing countriesdo not forget that our motto is Serving the world's poor profitablywe also want to make sure that we can do whatever we like with the profits, which naturally means that the bulk of them will flow back to shareholders abroad rather than stay in the places where they were earned.
	We do not like the idea that a country such as El Salvador should want to ensure that 50 per cent. of profits remain; we do not like the idea that locals in Cameroon should want to legislate for foreign investment creating local jobs; we do not like the idea that Malaysia should want to have the power to stop, if it so wished, a foreign takeover of a local company. It also seems that we do not like the idea that some countries want to run water services as a locally-owned mutual benefit societymy hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be interested in thisjust as we want to run our hospitals, so they must not, because if they did the fat cats would not be able to buy them. These measures are no doubt designed to make the flow of foreign investment more likely, but I would argue that such strictures will make developing countries subordinate to the whims of foreign investment, at the expense of local growth and self-government, and of course that will make those countries more rather than less vulnerable to the chill winds that the increasingly volatile climate of globalisation delivers.
	There are three questions that must be considered before we go further down the free trade road. The first is, if the common agricultural policy was so successful in developing the post-war farming industry of the EU, why cannot a similar policy be good for the agriculture of developing countries? It is all very well arguing that developing countries want equal access to our markets, and they do, but what goes unsaid is that those countries are in no shape to compete equallytheir infrastructure, distribution networks and indigenous markets are much weaker than ours, and they should be able to protect their development of these things until they are better able to compete. Investment should support that process, not suck these countries dry, leaving them in a worse state than before.
	Secondly, organisations such as the WTO need root and branch reform to allow equal access and influence to all nations in its negotiations. This is still not the case, despite what we have heard about this afternoon. Extra help has given developing countries better representation, but, as Dr Toufiq Ali, the Bangladeshi ambassador to the WTO has said, the greater numbers enjoyed by developing countries in multilateral negotiations has given them some extra strength, but that is negated when these countries are put under pressure in bilateral agreements. We know that the United States, for example, is chasing bilateral agreements more vigorously than ever before.
	Thirdly, the social and environmental dimension of free trade should be on the WTO's agenda. At the moment the WTO is prevented from discussing social issuesthose fall within the domain of bodies such as the ILO. But who can remember the last ILO ministerial meeting or development round, and who can recall a single decision of the ILO that was enforceable in the same way that WTO decisions are?
	China, a new WTO member, is represented on the ILO by a member of the Government sponsored, Government authorized and Government monopolised trade union federation. The repression of trade unionists in China is routine, but the ILO is toothless and the WTO washes its hands. It is time that the ILO's status was raised to that of the WTO, with enforceable rules and penalties.
	Free trade dogma increasingly seeks to deny decision-making to democratically elected bodies. Whether it is the US plastic packaging manufacturers' association running to the US Department of Commerce bemoaning the anti-competitive Irish plastic carrier bag tax, or the European Court of Justice telling us that we should not have golden shares in any business, we can see that whatever is perceived as anti-competitive will be attacked, and the hands of Governments will be tied by competition policemen who are answerable only to remote and unelected bodies whose laws no country can overturn. We should pause and think long and hard about how such bodies can be democratised before we allow them to foist more illiberal policies on us.

Nick Palmer: I shall keep my remarks short, as I know that those on the Front Benches would like to get a word in edgeways.
	We are all lobbied by a great many people on a great many subjects, and it is a pleasure to be lobbied on an issue from which the lobbyists do not stand to make any personal gains. Some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who made a thoughtful speech, acknowledged that we lack new volunteers for political parties, which perhaps reflects the ebbing away of the idealism that we all seek to encourage and engender. The Trade Justice Movement is therefore a welcome phenomenon with which I believe we should engage. We should do so honestly and listen to what those in the movement are saying, rather than simply say in a general and patronising way, Yes, it all sounds very nice. We should also tell them frankly when there are issues on which we do not agree.
	The Select Committee on the Treasury recently had the privilege of meeting the director of the World Bank, Jim Wolfensohn. With regard to the bank's latest report, whatever its reputation in the past, I believe that it is now seriously addressing issues of world poverty. We have heard many statistics today, and I shall add one more: 1.1 billion people make do on less than 70p a day. We need to consider poverty in the developing world. In the World Bank's reports, we see that the skewed inequalities in many developing countries are much more severe even than in our country, where they are bad enough. In working with developing countries, we need to ensure that our policies help them to develop and help their poorest people.
	An especially valuable initiative in that context is the international finance facility, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) mentioned. The attractiveness of the project is that it effectively doubles the available cash for aid in the short term to enable us to try to reach the world development goals that were agreed by the countries of the world a few years ago, but which, in many cases, are a very long way from being achieved. I commend the Government for pushing that issue forward. In talks with the Treasury in the United States, there was an impression that, although it might not be prepared to take the proposal on board in precisely the same form, it has not rejected it as explicitly as is believed in some quarters.
	The Trade Justice Movement is making a number of calls, although I shall not go into detail because of the time limit. Many of them have been mentioned. In particular, the movement is saying that there should be no forced liberalisation. Balance is important. There is an increasing recognition that siege economies and reckless liberalisation at all costs and as fast as possible are not the answer. This Government accept in their dealings with developing countries that they have the right to make informed decisions in consultation with us about the speed that is appropriate for them. I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing for us to make a bid to offer services in a developing country, as long as it is not accompanied by inappropriate pressure.
	I welcome the Trade Justice Movement and its efforts this week, and I welcome the Government's efforts. When we discuss the urgent issues of the day in Britain, such as whether we need a new national football stadium and whether we are in favour of nudity in gardens or approve of the standard of television programmes, we should recognise that they are piffling in comparison with those faced by people who live their entire lives in the shadow of hunger and disease. That is what we have debated today. I am glad that the Opposition chose to make it the topic of the day and that our Government are making such a commitment to addressing the issues.

Robert Key: Thank God that from time to time we can have a bit of passionlaced with good humourin our debates. Today was one such occasion. I was first elected 20 years ago this month. When I mentioned international development during the election campaign of 1983, I can record that my constituents reacted with polite bemusement that I should mention such a thing, and no doubt they thought I was slightly dotty. They were probably right. It is interesting to note that during those 20 years the whole atmosphere has completely changed, as the Minister of State said. All sides of the debate have moved on, which is a very good thing.
	I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), to his new position. We can be sure that he will talk good sense. After all, he has a Master of Arts degree in imperial and commonwealth studies under his belt, and I note that his special interests include India and Sri Lanka, as well as Harrow, West. That is not a bad agenda for an International Development Minister.
	When I meet trade justice campaigners in my constituency of Salisbury on Saturday, I will be able to report that we have had a robust, well-intentioned and good-spirited debate. The Minister talked about basic infrastructure. We should never forget that we are talking about basic economicsresource allocation of the most basic kind, whether it be water and drainage or transport and the ability to get goods to marketas well as the intellectual property challenges that face us and all the negotiating that we have to do in the world.
	I was a little sad that the good humour was broken by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), who, when he was generous enough to look in on our debateI note that he is not here nowaccused the Conservatives of scuppering attempts to reform the common agricultural policy. He was quite wrong about that. Conservative MEPs voted against the European Parliament reportthe Cunha reportthat opposed Fischler's proposals to reform the CAP. The Minister, who was then at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, thanked those Conservative MEPs for their support in trying to push forward the proposals for CAP reform. Indeed, when the Cunha report was voted on in the last plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Labour and Conservative MEPs voted against it and tabled joint amendments. Let me get the record straight: we are on the same side on this issue. It is astonishing to find that Conservatives are reading The Big Issue and George Monbiot is eating his hat. As the Minister said, all our views have changed. I want to make it clear that Conservative Members support more aid, and we support more trade, too. That is an extremely important point to get across. We have all moved on since the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and are now, I hope, firmly faced in the same direction.
	I salute the deep knowledge and compassion of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). I was a pleasure to hear him speak. He talked about free trade and fair trade. When I was a teacher of economics for 16 years, I always taught my pupils that free trade implied a willing buyer and a willing seller. We should underline that in this debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry)who has done a distinguished job as Chairman of the Select Committeetalked about the need for real political commitment, and he is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) also spoke with passion, saying that we have all been here before and that we must see some progress. He said that we have changed the political agenda because of the pressure put on by non-governmental organisations and pressure groups such as the Trade Justice Movement. I welcome that very much.
	I wish that all political parties could put as much pressure on the political agenda as a lot of these new and vigorous groups, which perform an important role. However, they should not be surprised when sometimes the Government and the Opposition disagree with them. That is not to say that we disparage them; we are simply saying that perhaps matters are not as simple as the groups think. At least we are engaging with our constituents, all of whom now think it important that we address these issues and that we are not dotty if we do.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) made an important contribution; he put very strongly a passionate point of view, for which I commend him. It is important that we have robust arguments in this House. If ever there were a man with his finger on the pulse of his constituents, it is my hon. Friend. He said that this was an important issue to all our constituents; he is, of course, right.
	The hon. Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) was passionate about decision-making processes, which we should not neglect. The processes are obscure and esoteric in the extreme to the people we are seeking to help. It is no good us bashing ourselves around the head in Cancunor putting wet towels around our heads in Brusselsif, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), every cow in the European Union is subsidised at $2 a day, which is twice as much as the living wage of half the world's population.
	I have some questions that the Government need to address. There is not time for the Minister to do so now, but it would be nice if he wrote to me about them. What will the Government do to ensure that other deadlines are not missed as badly as the deadlines for other reformsfor example, the CAP where it is all slipping horribly? Ministers are up against a real problem with the original Doha deadline. We were supposed to finish the round by January 2005; it is now suggested openly that it will not be finished until 2007. We must address that.
	What will the Government do about the increasing trade disputes that were put on hold under the peace clause negotiated during the Uruguay round, which expires on 31 December this year? What happens if we do not have something else in place? Several simmering disputes between the EU and the United States could boil up again, such as the foreign sales corporation tax and the fact that Brussels has won the right to impose up to $4 billion of tariffs in retaliation for America's failure to get rid of the tax provision.
	We must face these issues, and one more in particular: genetic modification. None of us has the answer to this or can be certain. The only certainty I have is that we must keep our minds open. There is no doubt that there are possible benefits and we must not close off opportunities. The director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Sandy Thomas, said in an important report this week:
	We do not claim that GM crops will eliminate the need for economic, political or social change, or that they will feed the world. However, we do believe that GM technology could make a useful contribution, in appropriate circumstances, to improving agriculture and the livelihood of poor farmers in developing countries.
	The Minister of State said that we must ensure that each country has the right to make its own decision on GM. Yes, we must, but if we are not careful we will make that decision for them by excluding their products from our markets, which would be a backward step. We must embrace every opportunity for science and technology to improve the lot of the poorest people on the planet. That is what we should all do, and I hope that we shall be able to move forward in the next year to ensure that we address properly, sufficiently and effectively the needs of the poorest people on the planet.

Gareth Thomas: It is a pleasure and a privilege to reply to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on her choice of subject. I am grateful to the House for its warm welcome. I particularly liked the description used by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) of the bevy of beauty and talent on the Front Bench. I am sure that I fit the first description, and I hope to convince the House that I fit the second.
	As the many excellent speeches on both sides of the House have demonstrated, the challenge that we face on this issue is considerable. Almost one in four of the world's populationtwo thirds of them womenlive in abject poverty. They do not have access to adequate food, clean water, essential health care or basic education services. Such poverty and inequality in a world of great wealth should be a powerful imperative for action by Governments, and in particular, by the leadership of the world's most developed countries. That is why a focus to achieve ever-greater progress towards the millennium development goals has been at the heart of this Government's international agenda.
	Many other steps need to be taken. In particular, we need to make further progress towards debt relief, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) pointed out. Removing barriers and creating fairer trade rules is a vital route towards meeting the millennium goals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) pointed out, we cannot talk about free or fair trade unless more developed countries take the often hard political decision to dismantle trade-distorting subsidies. Indeed, it is vital that European Union Agriculture Ministers take the bold decisions that many Members on both sides of the House have long sought on common agricultural policy reform in the negotiations that have resumed today.
	The evidence of the benefits of fairer trade is clear, and reducing global protectionism will increase global incomes. A number of hon. Members mentioned the US Farm Bill, and I share the sense of regret articulated by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) that the US Administration seem likely to increase market subsidies at a time when we are working within the European Union and the WTO significantly to reduce them. It is important, however, that that issue should not be allowed to distract us from achieving the target of concluding the Doha development agreement by the end of 2004. If we are to deliver that ambitious agenda for development, we have to make trade rules work for the poorest. Ministers across Whitehall have been working closely together to tackle the major obstacles, so that we can secure the progress at Cancun that the whole House has today indicated that it wants to see.
	I welcome the spotlight that the Trade Justice Movement has brought to the issues of trade and development, to secure a fair deal for the world's poor, but I hope that the movement will now join us in prioritising the real issues that matter most to developing countries. At the top of the list, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) highlightedand as the trade Ministers of the 49 least-developed countries made clear in their Dakar declaration at the end of Mayis the urgent need to give real priority to remedying the negative consequences of agricultural subsidies that affect millions of farmers in those least-developed countries.
	The hon. Member for Banbury was a little unfair about our commitment to CAP reform. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is, as we speak, working extremely hard with our European Union partners to secure a good deal that will allow the flexibility needed for real and serious engagement in the WTO negotiations, and that will genuinely benefit developing countries.
	I accept, too, that resolving the TRIPS and public health negotiations is essential to making this a true development round, as was eloquently pointed out by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. We are continuing to try to secure US agreement to the accord that we almost had on 16 December last year, to which all other WTO members could agree.
	As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, we are working on revisions to the WTO's special and different treatment provisions, in order to secure the progress that developing andimportantlydeveloped countries want to see. It is certainly true that deadlines have been missed, and the Government remain keen to re-establish the momentum as we approach Cancun.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park touched on the everything-but-arms agreement, which she was right to highlight as an example of successful European Union action in providing a good deal for the world's poorest countries. However, she was wrong to say that sugar, bananas and rice are not excluded from the agreement; transitional periods are in place for those three most sensitive of products. Full duty-free arrangements for them will be phased in between 2006 and 2008.
	On the liberalisation of services under the general agreement on trade in services, which the hon. Member for Richmond Park and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) mentioned, it is worth pointing out that research undertaken by a variety of organisations has highlighted the benefit that services liberalisation can have for developing countries. It is also worth mentioning that GATS is a bottom-up agreement: in other words, the countries themselves decide whether, and indeed when, to open up services, if they consider it beneficial to do so.
	The Government do not share the view that the so-called new issues should be left off the Cancun agenda. For example, getting more investment into developing countries must be fundamental to achieving the millennium development goals and genuine poverty reduction. Of course, promoting domestic investment is the priority, but foreign direct investment also has a key role to play. It not only provides additional capital, it helps to transfer new technology and skills and to generate new jobs. It is important to remember that developing countries will not be forced to open up all sectors; nor will they lose their right to regulate under any new investment agreement. Indeed, I can offer some assurance to the Trade Justice Movement campaign: we are interested only in developing an investment agreement that will help developing countries; we will not sign up to anything else.
	Business, which was mentioned by several Members, clearly has an important role to play in helping us to meet the millennium development goals. It is of course important in creating jobs, providing investment and fuelling the economic growth that we all want to see. May I suggest gently to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) that we want responsible business activity? Indeed, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made that point particularly tellingly in his intervention. We are pursuing a mixture of voluntary and mandatory approaches to promoting a true sense of corporate social responsibility.
	The one new idea in the motion moved by the hon. Member for Meridena fund to offer short-term legal aid to developing countriesis of course a good one. That is why this Government are already doing exactly that by providing direct support to the Advisory Centre on WTO Law, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out in an intervention. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr said, what is essential is long-term assistancewhich the Conservative motion does not mentionto build the capacity of developing countries, so that they can engage with the WTO on equal terms.

Caroline Spelman: On a point of clarification, the motion does not call for a short-term advocacy fund.

Gareth Thomas: With respect to the hon. Lady, I think that she needs to look at the press release on this issue. We are determined to be in there for the long term. We have allocated some 45 million to build developing countries' capacity to engage properly with the WTO. I hope that that gives some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West and the hon. Member for Richmond Park pointed out, the Conservatives' motion would be a little more credible if their record on these issues was not so poor. An aid budget that was 0.5 per cent. of gross national product in 1979 had been cut by half by the end of their Administration.

David Maclean: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 295.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House congratulates the Trade Justice Movement on bringing the plight of the poorest people in the world to the attention of the public; notes with concern the fact that a billion people live on less than a dollar a day, that life expectancy in many African countries is declining, and that 30 million people in Africa have HIV/AIDS; reaffirms the commitment made in the 2000 White Paper Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century to improving international trade rules so that they work for all countries, and especially the poorest, in helping to reduce poverty; notes that the successful pursuit of trade reform through the Doha round of multilateral negotiations could contribute substantially to the Millennium Development Goals; welcomes the substantial efforts the Government is making to promote trade liberalisation, reform agricultural subsidies and phase out European trade barriers; believes that significant progress must be made to improve access for developing countries to developed country markets; further believes that a solution to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and public health negotiations is urgently needed; and welcomes the commitment to ensuring that the Doha round produces real benefits for the poor.

Caroline Spelman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the winding-up speech that we have just heard, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), said that the press release on the advocacy fund, issued by my party, mentioned that the fund was short term. I have conferred with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Chancellor and nowhere in the press release on the advocacy fund do the words short term appear. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, that that should be put straight. The commitment is long term and sustainable, to provide expert advice through proper funds to help developing nations negotiate with rich nations[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me deal with the point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair; it is more a matter for debate[Interruption.] Order. I am sure that these matters can be looked at in the fulness of time, when the truth will come out.
	We now turn to[Interruption.] Order. I have dealt with that point of order. We are now moving on. DELEGATED LEGISLATION
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Prisons

That the draft Release of Short-Term Prisoners on Licence (Repeal of Age Restriction) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	  
	School Funding

Annette Brooke: I wish to present a petition signed by 320 pupils[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with a petition. Could hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly?

Annette Brooke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The petition is signed by 320 pupils of Ashdown school in my constituency. The petition was promoted by Jacob Waters, aged 12, after watching his head teacher on television talking about the funding crisis in his and other Poole schools. Jacob was assisted by Catherine, also aged 12.
	The petition of pupils of Ashdown school declares:
	That it is disgusting that students in the Poole area are not getting enough funding for their education; that students who have special needs rely on their teaching assistants to help them obtain a good education; that the Government promised everyone a good education, including the students of Poole, but have not delivered funding for this; that children are the future of Britain.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to provide, through legislation, adequate funding for all children, regardless of school or area.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Community Pharmacies

John Horam: I would like to present a petition on behalf of nearly 6,000 customers of Farrants pharmacy in Petts Wood, the Elmfield pharmacy in Biggin Hill, the Crofton road pharmacy and two pharmacies in Cotmandene crescent, St. Paul's Cray.
	The petition declares:
	That the Office of Fair Trading Report on Pharmacies poses a serious threat to community pharmacies, which will in turn disadvantage the sick, the elderly and the vulnerable.
	The Petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reject the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading Report, so allowing community pharmacies to continue their valuable role in providing local healthcare in an accessible way.
	The Petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Geese (Bridgwater)

Ian Liddell-Grainger: This is a petition from 431 Bridgwater constituents about the heinous geese snaffler of Bridgwater.
	The petition declares:
	That two geese, belonging to nobody but adopted by the whole community of Bridgwater, which have lived and nested happily on the banks of the River Parrett for twenty three years, have been removed by some thoughtless fool; that whoever has taken the geese has kept them, probably for his Christmas dinner; that the police and the RSPCA have identified a suspect; that the community of Bridgwater would like to see the geese returned to their rightful home.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to urge the police and RSPCA in Bridgwater to take action to return the geese.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Housing Development (Watchet)

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 450 people in the town of Watchet.
	The petition declares:
	There are serious concerns about the planned housing development on the Severn terrace fieldnamely that the housing density is too high and that it is out of keeping with the character of local buildings. It would reduce local parking space and increase the danger to local traffic, pedestrians and especially children.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to ask the district council to seek amendments to the current plans for the Severn terrace field housing development.
	To lie upon the Table.

Agricultural Education

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Derek Twigg.]

Richard Younger-Ross: I am very pleased to start a debate tonight on rural affairs and access to agricultural education in Devon. I confess to being slightly surprised that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will respond, as I had thought this a debate on education, but I very much welcome him to the Front Bench and congratulate him on his new position. I have no doubt that he will answer fully because I know that he has shared some of the concerns about Plymouth university's actions in the past, as he has an art college in his constituency that is facing closure, along with Seale-Hayne and another art college at Exmouth in Devon.
	The university took the decision to close the Seale-Hayne campus and move the students to Plymouth at the end of last year. The university decided that it would have a one-month consultation, so that it could fully appraise itself of the views of the local population and the students. One of my arguments is that a one-month consultation is not adequate, and I shall come to that again later.
	The college first opened in 1919, after Charles Seale-Hayne, who had been a Member of Parliament, stated in his will that a college should be established for the benefit of the people of the Newton Abbot area and to promote skills in Devon. The college currently has 180 hectares. It was originally run by a charitable trust. Although Plymouth polytechniclater Plymouth universitytook over running the main campus, the college still maintained its charitable status. Plymouth university only bought the campusI believe, for a sum of about 850,000in 1999. It said that it needed to do so because it needed to own the freehold so that it could invest in the campus to protect its future. That was obviously a very hollow gesture. I have every reason to believe that the university was actively considering closing the college when it was giving statements to the public that it wanted to buy the freehold to preserve it.
	After I heard that the college would close, I arranged a meeting with the deputy vice-chancellor, Peter Evans. I was told that the vice-chancellor was not then available, as he was away on other business. I found it rather odd that, having decided to close three campuses, the vice-chancellor should disappear all of a sudden and not be available to contact local representatives. However, within a few days, I was able to see the deputy vice-chancellor, who assured me that the closure was necessary, that it needed to be done for academic symbiance and that it was for the good of all concerned.
	Peter Evans went on to say in local papers that there were only four agricultural studentsout of 700-odd students at the collegeand that only 10 were studying agriculture part-time. I did some research, and a lecturer at the university has assured me that 521 students within the university study land use or food sciences in one way, shape or form, which is rather more than the deputy vice-chancellor suggested.

Angela Browning: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. On the point about food sciences, he will be aware that I have supported his campaign. As a former Minister with responsibilities for food, I opened the technology transfer centre at Seale-Hayne, which is a very important facility for those studying food sciences and of great interest and importance to the wider agricultural community that the college serves.

Richard Younger-Ross: I take the point. I also thank the hon. Lady and other Devon and Cornwall Members who have supported the campaign to keep the Seale-Hayne campus open. The faculty that she opened is important, and a local food processing business in Newton Abbot, Uniqe, has told me that it might be interested in talking to the college about food sciences and using those facilities. Sadly, that will not be possible if the college is closed.
	When I talked to Peter Evans, he said, We'll look at what we can do. We haven't really decided yet. Maybe we'll open a conference centre there. That was about as vague as it was possible to be. There was progress as the weeks went on, but I did not think that it had been thought about fully. What he did not sayin the same way that he was misleading about the student figureswas that in February of that year the university had put in an objection to the district council about the lack of development status for the land. It had applied for housing, industrial and leisure useeverything. It strikes me that if it was applying for everything in that way, and it was looking to open up all those possible options, it must have thought at some point that it would want to develop the land for a non-academic use. Therefore, when he said, We might open a conference centre, again, he was not necessarily telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as I understand it, because, clearly, the college was considering other options for the land.
	The university also put great store in the fact that many students do not like going to Seale-Hayne. Seale-Hayne is a land use facility in a rural area, and it therefore strikes me as an ideal location for the students. The students to whom I spoke all like it. Indeed, the Seale-Hayne future group, which has been set up to discuss and oppose the proposals by the university, did some research, including a study of students at Harper Adams college in Shropshire. It asked the question, Would students consider going on to Seale-Hayne for academic studies? When that question related to the rural campus, 95 per cent. said yes. When it was put to them in terms of a move to Plymouth, however, only 70 per cent. said that they might be interested and would consider it. The impact of moving and closing the college could therefore be that even fewer students attend the college than at the moment. That must put in doubt the viability of some of the courses that are currently being studied.
	The former governors of Seale-Hayne college who oppose these moves got together and went to see the vice-chancellorthey actually managed it. They had letters of support from a number of peopleSir Donald Curry, Lord Clinton, Lord Plumb, the president of the Royal Smithfield club, two former regional directors of the former Ministry of Agriculture, county councillors, district councillors and town councillorsall of them dismissed by the vice-chancellor and the college. In fact, I am told that the vice-chancellor considered that they were a bunch of old toffs trying to preserve their public school and that he was having none of it. To dismiss representations from such people in such a manner is a disgrace.
	Sir Donald Curry, who is a chief adviser to the Government on agricultural affairs, said:
	We are in grave danger of losing core farming skills if centres like Seale-Hayne are taken away.
	Lord Plumb, a former president of the European Parliament and chancellor of Coventry university, who therefore understands the issues and the problems facing other colleges, wrote a letter to the chairman of the board of governors.
	He said:
	I wonder if the Board of Governors fully and truly understands and appreciates the immense contribution the uniqueness of Seale-Hayne has made in the field of education in Agriculture and land-based subjects, and in training many of our most respected leaders today. In my view, it would be a tragedy if this 'compact and lively' College does not continue in its original form.
	As I said, such comments were dismissed by the vice-chancellor.
	Eventually, the vice-chancellor agreed to meet me. Today's Western Morning News said that some people consider him to be a bully-boyapparently he has a reputation for that; I cannot really comment. The newspaper has run a lively campaign to try to keep the college. In today's edition, the vice-chancellor says that if he does not get his way, he will mothball the college. I do not know what sort of negotiating tactic that is but it is strong-arm and I rather resent it. I asked the vice-chancellor what modelling he had done on the effect of keeping Seale-Hayne campus open. Apparently, none had been done, so he could not say.
	One of the reasons why there are fewer students at the campus than there should be is that it has not marketed itself. It was represented at the two county shows in Devon and Cornwall this year but not in previous years. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on higher education, visited the college with me at the end of last year, the first thing that he said to me was, Oh, they've got a marketing opportunity. There are very few foreign students here. Indeed, I am told that only 24 of the 561 people studying land-use studies are foreign studentsall the rest are from the UK. It is absolutely amazing that the college cannot attract more people. I put that point to the vice-chancellor and he said, Well, I wouldn't encourage them because the student union is a hot bed of racists. If one has such a problem, one deals with it. One does not use it as an excuse for not taking the college forward.
	In my meeting with the vice-chancellor, he continued, without any prompting, to try to denigrate members of the student union in my eyes. He said that he had heard the rumour around the college that one of the student union leaders was going to stand in the local election for the British National party. I might be appalled by the idea of a person standing for the BNP and by all that the party does, but it is up to students to stand for any party that they like. It is not for the vice-chancellor to tell me such tittle-tattle to try to put down my view of the students. I do not know whether he is a bully-boy, but he is about as arrogant as a colonial governor and his management is a disgrace.

Adrian Sanders: Is it not outrageous that the university, which is funded by taxpayers' money, is steamrolling the decisions without any accountability to the community that will be affected and that it is not taking on board the clear expression of people who live around Seale-Hayne and in the wider south-west region? That gives grounds for somebody to call the vice-chancellor in and tell him what his job actually is.

Richard Younger-Ross: I thank my hon. Friend and I agree with his well-made points.
	The professor said today that none of the money that will come from Seale-Hayne will be used to prop up the 60 million that he proposes to spend on the redevelopment of the university of Plymouth. His plans to redevelop the university are welcome and if the proposed schemes go ahead, it would be good for the south-west. I understand that he will be in place for perhaps only another five yearsmany in the south-west think that that is five years too many. What will happen after that if the university is in debt after spending 60 million? If money is available, I would be surprised if the governors did not asset-strip the campus site. I have no faith in the professor's assertions that the money will be ring-fenced and not used.
	The university has to answer a number of questions. Who developed the financial model on which the decisions were made and who validated that? What technical expertise was contracted to advise on, for example, construction, marketing and other issues? What capital and recurrent costs and income assumptions were built into the model? What sensitivity analysis was conducted to enable the university to provide decision makers with a balanced range of scenarios on which to form a judgment? At what point in the decision cycle was a financial model made available to governors and other interested parties? What are the financial and other risks to the institution arising from the strategy? The Higher Education Funding Council obliges all universities to identify, quantify and manage risks as part of the annual cycle. I understand that the development has not been included in that. That issue should also be raised with the university.
	Seale-Hayne is an excellent college. Its researchers are currently on the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council stand at the Royal show as representatives of the university of Plymouth. I want to see them there in future years, still based on the Seale-Hayne campus.
	Access to rural affairs, agriculture and land use studies is important. The Daily Telegraph on 18 February this year said:
	Agricultural students are few and far between after the crisis in the industry puts off many potential applicants.
	Action is required by the Government to encourage people to undertake such studies. If we lose Seale-Hayne, we lose an excellent centre and the opportunities that it provides. Perhaps we need a regulator that people can approach to examine the actions of universities and how they reach decisions. The Minister should ask the Department for Education and Skills to investigate the manner in which the university of Plymouth undertook the closure. One month's consultation is, to put it bluntly, a farce.
	We could learn from the experience of Seale-Hayne. I hope that there is still time to save it, but if there is not, at least let us ensure that other communities and colleges are not dealt with in such a high-handed way by universities and vice-chancellors.

Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on securing the debate. I was initially as puzzled as he was that I was requested to be the Minister at the Dispatch Box. However, we take advice on such matters from officials and I think that it was the reference to rural affairs in the debate's full title that landed it on my plateor, to be more accurate, on the plate of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, who unfortunately cannot be here. In a sense, it is sensible that I am here because I have some knowledge of the subject and my constituency of Exeter will be affected by the closure. As the hon. Gentleman explained, the restructuring of Plymouth university is having a serious impact on my constituency. The proposed closure of the excellent Exeter school of art and design has caused considerable concern.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister might not know that the vice-chancellor of the university said today that the money from the sale will go towards financing the site in Plymouth.

Ben Bradshaw: It was always likely to be the case that if the university made any money out of the sale of the land, it would be reinvested in the university.
	I expressed the concerns about the closure of the school of art and design to the university, but no matter how strongly we feel about such decisions, it must be the right principle that academic institutions are free to make the decisions that they think are in their best interests and that they are prepared to defend those decisions. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) reminded me before this debate that as a young radio reporter I interviewed her at Seale-Hayne in her capacity as an agriculture Minister about the thorny issue of badgers and TB in cattle, another issue that has landed on my plate.
	I am well aware of the excellent work that Seale-Hayne does but, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge pointed out, the university of Plymouth, has made a decision about which courses to offer and where to run them in the best interests of the university as a whole. In December, the university's board of governors unanimously approved proposals that will have an impact on Seale-Hayne. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about his initial problems in getting access to the vice-chancellor. If that is the case, that is deplorable. Anybody in any public institution should be available to elected Members of Parliament, as we are here to make representations on our constituents' behalf. However, in the same breath, may I say that I am not sure that the extent to which the hon. Gentleman personalised the issue in tonight's debate will necessarily help or strengthen his case.
	The university has said that the changes may ultimately benefit the rural area in which Seale-Hayne is located. Thanks in no small part to the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others, as well as the strong local campaign by friends of Seale-Hayne, the university has committed itself to carrying out a feasibility study to establish a long-term future for Seale-Hayne. It has tasked the university's rural economy review group, chaired by Professor Mike Beveridge, the deputy vice-chancellor, and including several prominent key players in the south-west, to look at the future use of Seale-Hayne. The university has no plans to close the farm at the Seale-Hayne campus and will retain research facilities there.
	Good innovative research is a vital aid to the Government, and I am glad to report that agricultural researchers from across the world visited the University of Plymouth Seale-Hayne campus for the first time as part of the UK Agricultural Economics Society conference in April this year. That conference was a valuable forum to discuss the increasing significance of the rural economy. One current proposal for the longer term use of Seale-Hayne is that it should become a rural centre of excellencea training business centre for rural businesses to support and promote the rural economy of the south-west region. All parties involved in discussionsthe university, the South West of England Regional Development Agency, Teignbridge district council and Devon county councilare in agreement about the general direction and long-term future use of Seale-Hayne. The proposal has been welcomed by, among others, Councillor Stuart Barker, who is chairman of the Teignbridge district council's economy committee and has described the plans as exciting and innovative. The idea is to establish a rural centre of excellence linked to the University of Plymouth's entrepreneurship programme.

Richard Younger-Ross: I accept the point made by the Minister. We all welcome the very good scheme proposed by the National Farmers Union and the RDA, but that proposal could be additional to a plan to keep undergraduates at the campus. It is a separate issue, and it should not distract us from the key issuethe removal of undergraduate students from the site.

Ben Bradshaw: In the end, those are decisions for the university and its board of governors. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work constructively with all the interested parties that I have mentioned in pressing for something that most people seem to agree would guarantee a good future for the college.
	As I said, the proposal would support potential entrepreneurs across the region who need access to specialist expertise to help them develop their business ideas. The programme is being delivered with public money from the RDA as part of its three-year programme, Knowledge Exploitation South West. That programme aims to boost the productivity and competitiveness of regional business through better exploitation of the higher education knowledge base in the south-west. The Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food included a recommendation that the Land-Based Training AssociationLANTRAand my Department should review agricultural education in full. In response to this recommendation DEFRA is carrying out a broader review of learning opportunities for rural businesses. The review will cover the provision and delivery of education and training, knowledge transfer, advice and information services, and measures to stimulate demand for learning.
	The land-based colleges are a key partner in the review, and the review's project team at DEFRA has met a number of key partners and stakeholders including several land-based colleges, among them Seale-Hayne. The team has also met the National Association of Principals and Agriculture Education Officers, the organisation that represents land-based colleges, to discuss how the facilities of colleges can best serve the rural communities in which they are located. The approach being taken by the university of Plymouth in developing a rural centre of excellence at Seale-Hayne matches well the thinking of many of the organisations already consulted as to how land-based colleges can most effectively meet the needs of their local rural communities.
	I have asked the team at DEFRA to discuss with the university of Plymouth and other land-based colleges the proposals and how we can work together in our work on the learning skills and knowledge review to shape learning providers such as Seale-Hayne to the changing needs of rural areas.
	The hon. Gentleman had a couple of specific questions about how decisions made by education institutions such as the university of Plymouth may be challenged. I am sorry to tell him that the Government have no locus to intervene in such decisions. As I made clear at the beginning of my speech, those decisions are made by autonomous universities and their governing bodies. There are proposals to establish an adjudicator who may have a locus to intervene in such decisions, but that will not happen until later in the year.
	I hope the debate has been helpful for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. The Government are working hard to ensure that the learning needs of people in places like Teignbridge are met. As part of that work, we need to make sure that those providing education and skills are able to meet the changing needs of a dynamic rural economy, and that they can meet the needs not only of those engaged in agriculture, but of others living and working in rural areas. I hope the university of Plymouth will use Seale-Hayne to good effect and to the benefit of Teignbridge and the wider south- west in future, as its founder intended.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Deferred Division
	  
	Sexual Orientation Discrimination

That the draft Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.
	The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn the instrument to the special attention of the House in its Twenty-first Report, HC 96-xxi.
	The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 54.

Question accordingly agreed to.